Traveller-digest       Monday, March 24 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1100



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Cloning
Re: Rabbit Hunting
Re: Templars
SSDS spreadsheet tool available
Re: Killing battledress
Re: Shields? edge o' pylons
Re: Rabbit Hunting
Re: Cloning
Re: Cloning
Re: The Stuff of Legends...
Re: Shields 
Re: Clones
Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...
Re; Shields
Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...
Re: Cloning
Black Globe & jump
Re: Cloning
Re: Ideas for new toys
Re: Cloning
Re: Killing Battledress

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

Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 21:39:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Re: Cloning

In a message dated 97-03-22 17:27:45 EST,Dom Mooney writes:

>I recommend the book "Cyteen" by CJ Cherryh. It goes into depth on cloning
>like nothing else I've read, and ties it to a excellent political Sci-Fi
>thriller.
>
All hail CJ Cherryh! She's a fave of mine.
dsf

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

Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 21:48:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Re: Rabbit Hunting

>A rabbit, for some reason unknown to humaniti, ran across the range,
>whereupon 
>everyone showed a complete disregard for fire discipline. The actual range
>was about 50m
Bunny hash will be served on the lido deck....
dsf

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

Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 19:11:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Templars

> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 11:20:25 -0000
> From: Jason Davies <obiwan@thenet.co.uk>
> 
> On 22-Mar-97, Craig Berry wrote:
> 
> T>I've been following this Templar discussion with some interest, as I am a
> T>Grand Lodge officer of Ordo Templi Orientis, a group whose name and
> T>symbolism derives from the Knights Templar.  Thus, I feel it incumbent on
> T>me to set the record straight.
> 
> Thanks Craig for the historical record, I can now see that I was mixing up
> the Templars with the Crusaders, doh!.

Well, easy enough to do, and accurate in the sense that the original
Templars were a group of crusading knights.  The only small correction was
that the Templars were founded and began their operations in Jerusalem
rather than Europe.

By the way, someone else mentioned the Hospitallers, another knightly
order of the time.  They were, as that post indicated, founded with a
similar goal to the Templars -- protecting pilgrims, in their case in
Europe.  The Hospitallers are thought to have absorbed many ex-Templars
following Phillip's treachery.

> T>There are very persistent myths, which originated as the Templars gained
> T>in prestige, that the knights of this order were secretly initiated into
> T>Saracen (Arab) religious mysteries, perhaps even those of the Assassins. 
> T>This was in all likelihood the sort of wild rumor that attaches to any
> T>powerful and secretive group, but there are shreds of historical evidence
> T>which support the idea.  By the way, the original Knights of the Grail
> T>myth, Parsifal, was inspired when the author (blanking on the name, sorry)
> T>saw Templars in action at a siege near Cairo.
> 
> Would it be at all possible to expand on these myths if reworked into a
> Traveller context?.  There's an ancients adventure in there somewhere.

Oh, by all means!  If you have the Templars guarding against some specific
external threat (the Vargr, perhaps, or one of the pocket empires) as a
major part of their mission, spending large chunks of their time in
'enemy' territory during periods of uneasy truce, and if you set up some
religious or mystical system (a special brand of psionics?) as a known
part of this 'enemy' culture...well, then it's easy to imagine our modern
Templars attracting the same sort of wild rumors as plagued the originals.

Additionally, when high-ranking Templar survivors were brought before
religious courts of inquiry following the destruction of the Order, they
are reputed to have confessed to worshipping a deity named 'Baphomet' and
a relic called 'Caput LVIII M" (or possibly 'Virgo' rather than 'M'), a
metal rendering of a male human head.  The latter was never accounted for,
though all the bastions of the Order were looted by Phillip and others. 
This would make a fine Ancient artifact in the updated version. 

> T>became quasi-mercenaries, and also bankers(!), inventing the first crude
> T>checking-account system (deposit gold at Templar fort A, get encoded
> T>certificate, withdraw it at Templar fort B).
> 
> The first Solomani megacorp???.  How many of the Traveller megacorps are in
> the hands of the nobility? and could therefore fund the Templars "police
> actions"..

Yes, this would make a lot of sense.  In a way, the Templars' banking
system paved the way for the Renaissance, by making capital far more
liquid than previously.  Oddly enough, the Black Plague was probably the
other major trigger...but that's another story. :)

> T>In time, the Templars became truly staggeringly wealthy, attracting the
> T>avarice and fear of European nobility and high clergy.  King Phillip of
> T>France finally crushed the Templars and siezed their assets in a sudden,
> T>brutal campaign, killing many members of the Order (including the Grand
> T>Master) and forcing the rest to flee or go into hiding.  Tracking where
> T>these latter knights ended up has been one of the most popular conspiracy
> T>theorist games for the last five centuries; the Masons and Rosicrucians
> T>both rank high in most theories.
> 
> Change Philip of France to his Imperial majesty Cleon I, and you've a
> wonderfully dark edged and compelling political background to M0 (which I
> haven't got yet - is there any suggestion of political infighting in this
> book?).

My thought exactly.  One lovely final twist to the tale, to help set this
tone:  When Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Master of the Templars, was
being prepared for burning at the stake in Paris, he is said to have
pronounced a terrible curse on the royal lineage of King Phillip.  Within
a year, Phillip and many influential members of his court were dead, along
with the Pope who had assisted in betraying the Templars.

However, the *really* cool part didn't happen until more than four
centuries later.  When King Louis XVIII of France (direct lineal
descendant of old Phillip) was guillotined, a voice from the crowd shouted
"Jacque de Molay, thou art avenged!"  It appears Templars have *long*
memories, and *lots* of patience... 

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

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

Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 22:38:49 -0600
From: "Andrew Akins" <igor@netins.net>
Subject: SSDS spreadsheet tool available

I have finished version 1.0 (or perhaps 0.1 would be better?) or my SSDS
design spreadsheet. It does a pretty good job, I think, and I'd like to
hear from people what they think about it. I am certainly open to
suggestions/critisms/comments.

The spreadsheet can be found on my starships page:

     http://www.netins.net/showcase/theakins/andy/trav/starship.htm

There are two versions available, one for Excel 97 and the other for Excel
5.0.

Also on this page are a bunch of my starship designs - feel free to comment
on them as well.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Andrew Akins                                                       |
| Home: igor@netins.net - http://www.netins.net/showcase/theakins/   |
| Work: andya@cms-gt.com - http://www.cms-gt.com/                    |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| May your villages remain ignorant of tax collectors, and may your  |
| sons be many and ugly and strong and willing workers, and may your |
| daughters be few and beautiful and excellent providers of love     |
| gifts from eminent families that live very far away, and may your  |
| lives be blessed by the beauty that has touched mine.              |
|                    - Number Ten Ox, "Bridge of Birds"              |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 23:31:20 -0500
From: "Peter L. Berghold" <peterb@cyber-wizard.com>
Subject: Re: Killing battledress

Hugh Foster wrote:
Hugh Foster wrote:


> We tend to deflect the first one (after a good laugh at the mental picture) with
> the handwave of "cerametal" armour nicked from Julian May, but the second
> continues to bother me. There's no given info to suggest how feasible it is.
> Anyone got any take?
> 

In campaigns I've played in, BD was a ceramic composite of a non-ferrous
nature. Magneticly placed mines wouldn't work in this case.  However, a
player in that campaign came up with the idea of an adhesive attached
explosive device.  Not very pratical as he wasn't able to get close
enough to attach the device.

As far as the power pack and such goes, these are protected.  So you
can't really take them out. Some sort of AP rounds were the preferred
methodology...

- -- 
PGP Fingerprint = D6 74 56 8E FB 52 4E DD  5C 3F 32 FE AE 1F 1C D0

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% Peter L. Berghold -- Unix Hacker at Large                          %%
%% TCG -- MIS Department       PHONE: (908) 392-2722                  %%
%% berghold@tcg.com  (work Email) peterb@cyber-wizard.com (play Email)%%
%% "Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it"  %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

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

Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 21:42:32 -0800
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: Shields? edge o' pylons

At 09:05 PM 3/23/97 -0500, Neveron@aol.com wrote:
>>those cute little Ewooks (hate, hate, hate)
>
>Open up Anders, tell us how you really feel.
>
>I hated them as well, Guess Chewbakka wasn't cute enough to make into a plush
>toy.

No, but he did almost come out with his own line of tobacco products with
the catchy slogan "Chewbacca does!" 

;-)

Mike

- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 00:51:34 -0500
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: Rabbit Hunting

Hugh Foster wrote:

>The actual incident occurred at the end of a day of range shooting in the Canadian Forces. 
>A rabbit, for some reason unknown to humaniti, ran across the range, whereupon 
>everyone showed a complete disregard for fire discipline. The actual range was about 50m

   A similar incident occured several years ago during a night live fire
excercise.  US Army tankers were firing their .50 cal machine guns at
stationary targets when a deer wandered on to the range.

   No, Bambi didn't make it....

Regards,

Harold

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

Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 22:48:24 -0700 (MST)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Cloning

 
> Actually, I think the problem with cloning is the typical usage versus the
>   narrow definition.  The simplest form of cloning is what we have now--
>   the ability to create genetically identical organisms.  Unfortunately
>   (or fortunately, depending on your perspective) the common usage of cloning
>   is to create a copy which is not only genetically identical but which is
>   of the desired physiological development and has already accumulated
>   knowledge identical (or atleast equivalent) to the original.

How, pray tell would this ever happen? :-)  I can't see that
happening, it isn't in the genes, so it won't express itself in the
clone.  I agreee with your first point, most people don't really
seem to know what a clone _is_.

>   normal physiological development.  So, the standard sci-fi cloning issue
>   would involve regular cloning, followed by accellerated development of the
>   tissue, and topped off by either memory implantation or speed learning
>   (take your pick).  Get all that accomplished, and then you have your
>   "cloning" ability.  

Then you have something that is beyond cloning.  What we have now
_is_ cloning, any addition of memory or some such goofiness is not
cloning, it's something else.  Maybe psionics could do some kind of
memory implantation, that is a good bet for traveller since it
involves the least science nullification (since psi already
nullifies for us :-)

Speed learning will make a learned adult, but won't make a copy of a
"normal" person (though all the speed learned people would share
similar experiences so they'd be sort of alike, even if they didn't
have their parent's personality.

- -Merrick

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 02:32:16 -0500
From: Jeff Harvey <jharvey@nlci.com>
Subject: Re: Cloning

It wouldn't be possible to develop memory recording and implantation? 
If it is possible, at what TL would it become available?  Imagine the
implications if it were possible.  Eventually, institutions of higher
learning would be obsolete.  Bootcamp would become an extended physical
exercise course.  Many things that are commonplace would change.  I
can't believe that this can't be done.  It would actually be more
beneficial to society as a whole than cloning would be.  Thoughts???

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 09:29:49 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: The Stuff of Legends...

On Sun, 23 Mar 97 21:21:12 -0400, you wrote:

> I'm also trying to find the name of the corporation
> that Ripley worked for in Alien, etc.

Weyland-Yutani.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:32:41 +0100
From: Nicolas LEJEUNE <nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr>
Subject: Re: Shields 

Nicholas Wright wrote:

>Black Globe as cloaking device as attacker drifts into Enemy system.
>The big problem is that you can=92t see out so how do you know what is o=
ut
>there.
>
>Try this solution:  Code name  Quarterback Sneak

<Black globe drawback disruption>

>It is probably best to have the black globe ship designed in such a way
>that when it gets time to fight deep in-system, you can drop the globe
>and drive the small craft straight into its dock for safety.

That would be a good solution. But this solution would partially cleared
the main black globes drawback. As other said before, Black Globes are ve=
ry
powerful equipement. But they are fun to manage because of their
disadvantage.=20

Players : "Were are we?"
Referee : "You don't know exactly, but somewhere here with 30.000Km error=
"
Player : "Were are they?"
Referee : "You don't know, but they know where you are as the shield HPG
gauge is still increase by step of  200MJ every few minutes."

This drawback make the Black globe not so efficient as it could be. You
cannot stop all fire without some disadvanteges.
If my players suggested me such system, I would answer that the bandwith =
of
the laser hits/HPG increase isn't large enough to carry usefull
communications. Imagine a 1 baud communicator! You could get some minimal
informations but no EMS painting of the tactical zone around you ship.
=20
- -----------
Nicolas LEJEUNE
   Engineer, Paris, France
   Traveller (TNE), and WhiteWolf RPG
   Mailto:nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:19:37 +0100
From: Nicolas LEJEUNE <nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr>
Subject: Re: Clones

At 12:10 20/03/1997 -0500, you wrote:
>I am fairly new to Traveller, and have just begun refereeing a game.  I
>am working on a campaign that has a "Blade Runner" feel to it.  I am
>using TNE rules.  Because my PC's are new to Traveller as well, I'm
>starting them pre-Virus to let them get a feel for some of the
>technology, before I take it away from them.  I was wondering if anyone
>has rules for cloning.  Are there Mega-corporations in Traveller that
>would specialize in creating clones for interested persons.  If anyone
>has any information on the subject of cloning in Traveller, I would
>appreciate hearing from you.  You can either post it here, or e-mail me
>directly.  Thank you.


Actually, I don'ty have any rule. But the recent explorations in the
cloange domaine in England show that's doesn't seem too hard to clone at
TL8. So we can easily imagine that at TL10 it is easy to clone someone.
Let's say as easy as in vitro fecondation today. 

The problem is not the is not the scientific difficulties. The main problem
should be ethics and by consequences _laws_.
Another question is "What are the clone for?". Is it a way to create new
people? Is it a way to create better troops (not pure clones but
modificated ADN)? Is it a way to have replacement organs for the orginal
(freezed organ bank)? Is it a way to get doubles for security? What would
be the social status for the clones? Does they have to be easily recognized?

Now if you want to know if it's possible to create a same age double in
several monthes (like accelerating grossing) I would say : choose as you want!

Some of those point could be authorized or well accepted on some planets of
totaly rejected on others. You can either legally forbid them or let the
player having 6 clones :-) (Oh no, don't shoot, I did't betray the yellow
accreditation guy, ...zblam!...)


- -----------
Nicolas LEJEUNE
   Engineer, Paris, France
   Traveller (TNE), and WhiteWolf RPG
   Mailto:nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:02:57 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...

On Sun, 23 Mar 1997 01:05:46 PST, you wrote:

> > Considering that recoil still has to be managed in some--
> > possibly energy consuming-- way, would such a design be a more or
> > less efficient method of delivering "damage" than a laser weapon
> > powered using the same power source?
>=20
> Recoil depends on the mass of the dart, and the muzzle velocity. So
> it's no harder to manage than for a firearm with the same mass*velocity
> of the projectile. Note that this is *momentum, *not* "muzzle energy"!

What I was actually referring to is that conventional firearms
use muzzle brakes or gas actions to reduce recoil.  Since
railguns or mass drivers do not deal with expanding gases to
propel its ammunition, other methods would have to be utilized to
reduce recoil to a manageable level.  In a high tech society I
would imagine that some form of inertia-reduction technology
would need to be used, thereby increasing the energy requirements
for the weapon even more.

My initial point about recoil stemmed from the 9 pound TL12
linear accelerator pistol design (with a 15cm muzzle and a muzzle
velocity of 1,500 m/s) that was submitted to the list.  That's a
terrible amount of recoil to deal with all at once!  Since FF&S
only lists gyroscopic stabilization (not really recoil
management) and stock-mounted recoil pads (not applicable to a
pistol design), I began wondering what the recoil might be like.

If the technology were to exist to negate that recoil, it would
require *at least* the same energy used to propel the projectile.
And that's assuming 100% efficiency for both the weapon and the
recoil management mechanism.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:19:14 +0000
From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Re; Shields

Nicholas Wright <xgr52@dial.pipex.com> wrote

> Try this solution:  Code name  Quarterback Sneak

(send in a very stealthy small craft hiding behind the black globe'd 
ship).

Surely a QB sneak is more like "The enemy know we're here, they know 
what we want to do, so shields up and ramming speed, Number One..." 
8-)

ObTrav: How is it that Imperial technology can build black globes 
(CT/MT anyway) but can't rig an off-switch to turn off the field when 
the capacitors are nearly full?

Nick
Dr. Nick Munn, University of Sheffield, Dept. of Information Studies
 (formerly nsm14@cus.cam.ac.uk, now N.S.Munn@shef.ac.uk)

Scientist * Freelance theologian * Traveller player and BITS member

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:15:32 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...

On Sun, 23 Mar 1997 09:37:38 -0800, you wrote:

> Question:  It's always been my understanding that a gauss rifle would =
have a
> lower recoil due to the fact that the is accelerated over the length of=
 the
> barrel, not suddenly by the explosion of a powder charge.  Am I
> misunderstanding something?

Total recoil would still be the same ('for every action...").
Weapons with longer barrels DO build up that same energy over a
longer period of time, however, allowing your recoil management
devices more time to absorb that recoil (ie: more of a
squishy-squooshy kind of recoil, rather than the garden-variety
hit-over-the-head-with-a-sledgehammer kind of recoil).  The end
result is less recoil felt by the user.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:27:13 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Cloning

On Sun, 23 Mar 1997 22:48:24 -0700 (MST), you wrote:

> =20
> > Actually, I think the problem with cloning is the typical usage =
versus the
> >   narrow definition.  The simplest form of cloning is what we have =
now--
> >   the ability to create genetically identical organisms.  =
Unfortunately
> >   (or fortunately, depending on your perspective) the common usage of=
 cloning
> >   is to create a copy which is not only genetically identical but =
which is
> >   of the desired physiological development and has already =
accumulated
> >   knowledge identical (or atleast equivalent) to the original.
>=20
> How, pray tell would this ever happen? :-)  I can't see that
> happening, it isn't in the genes, so it won't express itself in the
> clone.

Not entirely true.  As babies, we all apparently have the ability
to breath AND swallow at the same time, as well as a fundamental
ability to swim.  We seem to lose these abilities within the
first year or so, but they *are* genetic.

It's not a lot, but it's a start :)

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:47:15 +0000
From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Black Globe & jump

Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org> asks:

> If you have the Black Globe on, sucking in energy and shunting it into the 
> capacitors, then use the capacitors to power the j-grid and then jump, what 
> happens, and how does the j-field and the black globe field interact?

DGP's Starship Operator's Manual (for MT) was keen to point out that 
it's not just the energy pumped into a j-grid which causes a good 
jump, it's the "shape" of the energy profile: you have to charge up 
quickly and smoothly, and you can't hold that charge for long.  I 
think one reason for this was to imply that unusual means of charging 
jump capacitors were at least difficult.

Let's say j-capacitors are designed for very short-term storage and 
very fast release, and need to be charged all at once.  If normal 
capacitors can be used to charge the JD, it could take something like 
ten times the volume of the original capacitors (which works out at 
approximately 5% of ship volume per jump number, conveniently 
enough) to charge the j-caps intensely enough.  This would require 
less fuel volume than CT/T4 (or MT, slightly) but be insanely 
expensive. (Perhaps a factor 10 was too big.)

> The main point involved using the Black Globe to shield the ship from a 
> planet's gravity well, he argued that gravity is just another form of 
> energy, so at 10-100 diams it could suck gravitons and power the j-grid and 
> jump, and the ship would be safe from the effects of the gravity well.

I think this might be "low-grade" energy, and require extra 
capacitors at the very least. That's if you turn the globe off to 
jump...

If you don't, I would rule that it's not unlike trying to jump from 
a craft already in j-space. (A globe'd ship is not unlike a jumping 
one, cut off from the universe.) All that energy going off *inside* 
the field would just feed back into the capacitors, probably melting 
things via hysteresis before it atrophies away, leaving a rather hot 
ship (sans black globe and much other electronics).

OTOH, if characters want to try it, finding a black globe generator 
could take years of adventure while you work out what happens.

Nick
Dr. Nick Munn, University of Sheffield, Dept. of Information Studies
 (formerly nsm14@cus.cam.ac.uk, now N.S.Munn@shef.ac.uk)

Scientist * Freelance theologian * Traveller player and BITS member

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

Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 18:50:36 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Cloning

In mail you write:

> I think the key to clones is that they should have near identical STR, DEX,
> END, and possibly INT. But EDU and SOC should vary with task and training.
> Of course, if you are looking for the excessive abilities shown by
> replicants in Bladerunner, why not generate using 2d6+3 or just pick the
> stats.

Even STR, DEX, and END are affected by training. We don't really have
(real world) INT defined well enough to say one way or the other.

> I recommend the book "Cyteen" by CJ Cherryh. It goes into depth on cloning
> like nothing else I've read, and ties it to a excellent political Sci-Fi
> thriller.

She has *several* books that deal well with the Azi (clones). 

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

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

Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 13:53:22 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Ideas for new toys

In mail you write:

>>Having done range clearance on a bombing range - I was taught to always
>>keep detonators and explosive separate until ready to blow something up.
>> This prevents inadvertent explosions when in close proximity - Not a
>
> So we make the detonator part of the strip inert until a small
> electic charge or some such is ran through it....Say, slap the tape
> down and then press the 3I's equivalent of a 9-volt battery against
> it.

Static electricity easily provides a *lot* more voltage than that. You
can get multiple thousand volt charges merely by unrolling part of a
roll of tape. (Gee, this stuff is in tape form... :-)

And conductive materials exposed to magnetic fields (or to EM radiation
such as radio waves) will get moderate voltages via induction effects.

This is *why* detonators are treated with such care in the real world.
Static from the wrong sort of clothes, or a stray radio broadcast can
set them off! So the detontators are kept with the wires *shorted* and
in shielded boxes.

Believe me, we've got at least 150 years of "oops" type mistakes to
look back on. We've learned the hard way that Murphy *likes* it when
you keep explosives and detonators close together.

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

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

Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 18:53:44 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Cloning

In mail you write:

>      Thanks for the info.  What your telling me, is that clones will not be
> commercially available to any race, including PC's, and that they cannot
> be "programmed".

Anything that can program a clone can program a non-clone. And would
have *significant* effects on Imperial culture (education via "tape",
for example). 

"Forced growth" *may* be possible. But you can use that along with ova
and sperm banks to "mass produce" workers without cloning. F.M. Busby's
"Rissa Kerguelen" books cover this as a side issue. It's *not* a "nice"
technology... not unless its use is rare.

And without forced growth and "programming", all a clone will be is a
identical twin that isn't the same age. 

That's the point. All that a clone ism is an identical twin generated
artificially. And twins aren't carbon copies. Ones raised years apart
are going to be even less so.

> at TL-16.  I may have to write my own rules on this, because we, in
> 1997, have already developed cloning to a degree.  I would think that by
> TL-16 there would be a huge market for clones, even they would be
> incredibly expensive (somewhere in the 10's of MCr's).

Where's the market? It'd just be a different take on slavery. And
slaves are cheaper as you don't need skilled labor to produce them.

Now *if* certain traits can be *proven* to have a genetic basis, then
there'd be some interest in clones. And a lot more in gene therapy to
add the traits to one's children.

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

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

Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 21:35:08 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Killing Battledress

In mail you write:

> [Duck Berry] 
>> And when the point-defence laser mounted on my BD stops your
>> grenade(s) after 2 meters of flight, and my point-defence radar
>> immediately give me a visable flight path back to the launch point,
>> information that the other three members of my fire team have
>> instant access to, what are you going to do then?    Also, I've got
>> a sensor suite that will detect your goon either by IR or contour
>> mapping.. I may fire first with a hand-held gauss machine gun or
>> plasma weapon!  Not to mention that since I'm already in a sealed
>> enviroment, I have no problem with punching holes in the hull.

> I have to say, I'd put my money on the man in the tin suit. If the
> goon had had a brain, however, he'd have stayed in the bridge and
> turned the gravity in the appropriate area up to 3, 4, 5g or so. And
> then come along and disconnected his power pack from way over here
> with a laser welder before killing him with something real cheap,
> like a potato peeler. :)

No designer worth his salt will have the power leads exposed that way.
Precisely *because* of nasty people like you. :-)

My preffered surprise for boarders in BD is a special grenade. You
evacuate the atmosphere, kill the gravity and lob in one. It's a
thermal charge wrapped in sodium or potassium. The result is a stream
of metal vapor that will flash plate itself over any nearby surface. 

Sensors don't work well with an opaque layer of metal over them!
Neither do visors. Radio antennas are shorted to the suit (which will
*ruin* the transmitter if you key your mike). Also, your suit just
turned into a big thermos. It's gonna get *real* hot in there *real*
quick (seriously, loss of cooling in a spacesuit can render you
unconcious in *minutes*). 

This simple device should be a standard item anywhere that vacuum and
combat are together. Oh yes, anyone caught by the fringe of the effect
will get a nice surprise when they reach air. The coating may catch
fire...

They also make a nasty incendiary in most atmospheres. :-)

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

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1100
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Monday, March 24 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1101



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Where are we?
Anti-BD grenades
Meson question and Graviton quesiton
Re: Where are we?
Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...
Re: Rabbit Hunting
Friendly fire & genetic knowledge
Re: Cloning
Re: Killing battledress
Re: Killing battledress - resend
Re: Meson question and Graviton quesiton
Re: Black Globe & jump
Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...
Re: Cloning  --  LONG
Cloning...Correction to math
RE: Meson question and Graviton quesiton

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

Date: 24 Mar 1997 13:07:37 +0000 (GMT)
From: "That Blues guy....." <94038589@STUDENT.ucc.ie>
Subject: Where are we?

     All this recent talk about the size of the galaxy has got me thinking,
where exactly are we, in relation to the arms? Ie, how far inside the arm are
we? Does the published maps of imperial space protrude out beyond the arm?
I'm sure someone out there has the answer (though it's quite possible It's been
said already and I missed it).

- -Brian Caball

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 14:04:50 +0000
From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Anti-BD grenades

Leonard Erickson writes:

> My preferred surprise for boarders in BD is a special grenade. You
> evacuate the atmosphere, kill the gravity and lob in one. It's a
> thermal charge wrapped in sodium or potassium. The result is a stream
> of metal vapor that will flash plate itself over any nearby surface.

Nasty! But actually, won't the BD point-defence laser punch a hole in 
it? I assume in normal operation the thermal charge turns the metal 
into vapour, and the grenade bursts when the internal pressure 
becomes high.  A hole would mean a single stream of metal vapour, 
which would rapidly cool into small droplets anyway.

Having said which, the thought of one of these being thrown at me
if I were in a vac suit gives me the screaming heebie-geebies... just 
think of what the metal would do to almost any suit material you 
care to name: you'd lose all the surface of the suit, tho' probably 
not to any real depth.
 
Only real problem is that even if you win, you have a heck of a time 
cleaning up your ship, what with alkali metal painted all up the 
walls (and probably not doing them a power of good either).  The best 
thing to do would be to dissolve the stuff in absolutely dry 
ethanol, but shipboard all that's going to be available is water 8-).

[Sodium and potassium react slowly with ethanol to form sodium 
ethoxide and hydrogen, whereas water reacts quite dramatically to 
give metal hydroxide and H_2... and quite a lot of heat very quickly.]

Oh, and your stores chief is going to be a nervous individual.

Nick

Dr. Nick Munn, University of Sheffield, Dept. of Information Studies
 (formerly nsm14@cus.cam.ac.uk, now N.S.Munn@shef.ac.uk)

Scientist * Freelance theologian * Traveller player and BITS member

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 15:19:01 +0100
From: Nicolas LEJEUNE <nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr>
Subject: Meson question and Graviton quesiton

Meson question -----------------------

I've read in a book that Meson(quark-antiquark) particles have a life span
of 10^-16s before their degeneration in two gamma photons. This life span
is too short to do a very long distance of several hexes.

For example 10 hexes is 1s at light speed. 

But in the other hand, As the time slows with speed, is it correct to give
the next explaination :

I accelerate the Meson particle to the speed where the time flow is 10^-16s
per second of a static observator. In 1s (of the observator) the particle
would 'live' its average life span. the particle degenerate 1s after its
creation in the observator scale. The particle which speed is realy near
lgith speed covers the 10 hexes is 1s

So to reach a specified range with a Meson gun you just have to calculate
the velocity of the particle (which has to be VERY VERY precise indeed)

Does it sound correct?


Graviton question ---------------------

I'm thinking of another quesiton, about graviton quesiton.

I am in a gravity field of a planet for example. Who radiates gravitons
?(me or the planets) and in which direction? (toward each other, or in
backward direction)

And the traveller related question is : how Contragrav devices interfere
with the graviton flow?


Thanks in advance for replying
- -----------
Nicolas LEJEUNE
   Engineer, Paris, France
   Traveller (TNE), and WhiteWolf RPG
   Mailto:nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 09:54:51 -0500 (EST)
From: SirBStard@aol.com
Subject: Re: Where are we?

      I know we are on the Pegasus arm. I think we are over half way out on
it. I know we are 500 Light Years from the stars that make up Orions Belt.
They are farther in along the arm towards galactic core. This is what I know
off the top of my head. Hope it helps.

 D.K. / Keith's Brother

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 09:03:26 -0600 (CST)
From: "Peter  H. Brenton" <pete@cummings.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...

On Sat, 22 Mar 1997, James Lindsay wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Mar 1997 00:19:19 PST, you wrote:
> 
> > Pull the trigger and it feeds a "dart" into the "receiver" and pushes
> > it forward until it engages the rails. At that point, the current
> > starts and "zap"! The projectile zooms down the barrel. once the
> > current stops, that unlocks things to allow another dart to feed.
> 
> Considering that recoil still has to be managed in some--
> possibly energy consuming-- way, would such a design be a more or
> less efficient method of delivering "damage" than a laser weapon
> powered using the same power source?
> 
Unfortunately, the picture of a laser which pokes holes inthings is not
very accurate.  A laser will heat things and melt or incinerate them.  It
will not disintegrate or penetrate (except where it has melted or
vaporized stuff on the outer layer).

That said, it could be that at higher TLs the laser is fucussed or paired
with another beam (microwave laser? x-ray? florine?) which makes it's
effects more dramatic (this is the take I use) and more like star trek
phasers (tm).

So, using "real science" accellerated projectiles will transmit the energy
via kinetic impact better than a laser using the same energy (assuming
they are within an order of magnitude in efficiency of transmission to
target) simply because the kinetic delivery is more effectivethat the
heat-energy delivery.

But, using "speculative science" I would say that as TLs go up your laser
rifle/carbine becomes a more effective weapon relative to the gauss rifle.
with a (guessed at) "pivot point" of TL12 or TL13.

Pete

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 09:21:15 -0600 (CST)
From: "Peter  H. Brenton" <pete@cummings.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Rabbit Hunting

On Mon, 24 Mar 1997, Harold D. Hale wrote:

> Hugh Foster wrote:
> 
> >The actual incident occurred at the end of a day of range shooting in the Canadian Forces. 
> >A rabbit, for some reason unknown to humaniti, ran across the range, whereupon 
> >everyone showed a complete disregard for fire discipline. The actual range was about 50m
> 
>    A similar incident occured several years ago during a night live fire
> excercise.  US Army tankers were firing their .50 cal machine guns at
> stationary targets when a deer wandered on to the range.
> 
>    No, Bambi didn't make it....
> 
As a contrast, working a Boy Scout rifle range (Parker Mt. Scout
Reservation, Barnstead NH) when a chipmunk crossed the range.  As soon as
the thing arrived in the firing range area there was ....  complete
silence .... the range director said "cease fire" *after* everyone had
stopped to watch the cute little chipmunk swiftly cross to the other
side and go up over the embankment (although one person did a little
chipmunk imitation saying "ohshit! ohshit! ohshit!" over and over until he
left the range in a falsetto voice).

If a bunch of 12-17 year old 'scouts can listen to the instruction "If any
living thing enters the range, cease fire immediately", Why can't a bunch
of pros?

Of course, maybe if they'd had automatic weapons...

Pete

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:20:30 -0500 (EST)
From: pierre-louis constantin <Pierre-Louis.Constantin@DMI.USherb.CA>
Subject: Friendly fire & genetic knowledge

Greetings!  <does the Darrian 'live long and prosper' wave> :)
 
     I'd just like to know if any of you have rules to handle
gunfire misses in a cluster of friends and foe...  How do you decide
if a friend was hit instead of the ennemy?

     2) Has anybody made a scenario involving a battle dress and a
bank robbery?  They seem to have caught on in the US... :|
 
     3) 'genetic' knowledge:  Well, there are some fairly new
theories that claim that knowledge isn't just stored in the way
neurons are connected together but that in fact it can be encoded
into proteins!   That way, all of the cells in the body can have a
certain amount of knowledge.  How and when and what type of knowledge
(I should say Information) this is is not known at all... But it
could probably be things like attitude, instincts and abilities, and
not things like how to spell 'kulturverlangstur' (obviously :)...
Because things like instinct could be decoded by your neural hardware
which is encoded genetically, but your alphabet isn't, so you can
access that knowledge.  It's just a theory of course. :)
 
     But maybe at high tech levels someone can analyse the way you
interpret that information and have some proteins encoded and
injected in you so you can understand the knowledge...
 
     Hope this gives people a few ideas :)


- -- 
Pierre-Louis Constantin, ift. a.   "He whose name was writ in E-mail."
(: "I hate fanatics with a passion; all extremists should be shot." :)
         How's my surfing? http://www.dmi.usherb.ca/~constanp/

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 16:53:46 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Cloning

>That's the point. All that a clone ism is an identical twin generated
>artificially. And twins aren't carbon copies. Ones raised years apart
>are going to be even less so.

Except that they'll choose the same color of shirts/tie, the same name for
wife and like the same brands of cigarettes. These findings although hard
to believe have been found statistically significant on identical twins
separated at birth. Psychologists are scratching their heads over this one
and could perhaps lead to interesting adventures.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:59:22 -0500
From: Bill Rutherford <worj@topgun.cinecom.com>
Subject: Re: Killing battledress

At 02:09 AM 3/24/97 EST, you wrote (considerably snipped):
 
>...player in that campaign came up with the idea of an adhesive attached
>explosive device.  Not very pratical as he wasn't able to get close
>enough to attach the device.
>

The Brits had a similar device, the grenade, anti-tank, mark whatever (don't
recall the number) - better known as the sticky bomb.  It didn't prove very
practical, either...

- ---------------
Bill Rutherford
worj@topgun.cinecom.com

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:59:59 -0500
From: Bill Rutherford <worj@topgun.cinecom.com>
Subject: Re: Killing battledress - resend

At 02:09 AM 3/24/97 EST, you wrote (considerably snipped):
 
>...player in that campaign came up with the idea of an adhesive attached
>explosive device.  Not very pratical as he wasn't able to get close
>enough to attach the device.
>

The Brits had a similar device, the grenade, anti-tank, mark whatever (don't
recall the number) - better known as the sticky bomb.  It didn't prove very
practical, either...

PS - This was back in WW II... 

Sorry for the resend!

- ---------------
Bill Rutherford
worj@topgun.cinecom.com

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 09:55:12 -0600 (CST)
From: "Peter  H. Brenton" <pete@cummings.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Meson question and Graviton quesiton

On Mon, 24 Mar 1997, Nicolas LEJEUNE wrote:

> Graviton question ---------------------
> 
> I'm thinking of another quesiton, about graviton quesiton.
> 
> I am in a gravity field of a planet for example. Who radiates gravitons
> ?(me or the planets) and in which direction? (toward each other, or in
> backward direction)
> 
> And the traveller related question is : how Contragrav devices interfere
> with the graviton flow?

Ok, Lets get this straight.  The idea (IMHO) behind "gravitons" is similar
in concept to the idea of "photons"; a word to describe something which,
sometimes, acts like a particle, while it is acting like a particle.

Keep in mind that 1). this is all handwaving and 2). we are trying to
describe the behavior of an invisible, undetectable, theoretical particle
that isn't always a particle.

When you are in the "gravity field" of a planet the planet is emmitting
a gravitic effect not on you, but on the space around you, which distorts
that space such that you are drawn towards the planet.  Your ship (and,
for that matter, you) are also distorting the space around *you*.

Contragrav prevents the gravitons emitted from nearby sources from
affecting the space in the area of effect of the contragrav by
'refracting' or bending the particles around the area of effect.  For this
reason there may be an area of marginally increased gravity immediately
around the contragrav area of effect (really, I'm making this up as I go
along!).  It is marginal because the graviton waves are all displaced for
a large area by one another.  

Basically, gravitic technology centers around making an "immunity zone"
where gravity is nullified, or (in the case of inertial compensators and
grav floor plates) creating a small scale distortion by emitting 'fake
gravitons' in a limited area.  Please, don't ask me to elaborate.

Again, this is all handwaving.  I do not think that the materials in
traveller go into it too deeply.  These are props to be used in the
performance that is roleplaying, not things to be explained or described
in too much detail ("Pay no attention to the referee behind the
curtain.").  The mechanics are sometimes an important plot device.  Of
course, if you have fun doing so, please do.

Pete

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:40:57 -0700 (MST)
From: "P. ENGEBOS" <pengebos@NMSU.Edu>
Subject: Re: Black Globe & jump

On Mon, 24 Mar 1997, Nick Munn wrote:

> Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org> asks:
> 
> > If you have the Black Globe on, sucking in energy and shunting it into the 
> > capacitors, then use the capacitors to power the j-grid and then jump, what 
> > happens, and how does the j-field and the black globe field interact?

> DGP's Starship Operator's Manual (for MT) was keen to point out that 
> it's not just the energy pumped into a j-grid which causes a good 
> jump, it's the "shape" of the energy profile: you have to charge up 
> quickly and smoothly, and you can't hold that charge for long.  I 
> think one reason for this was to imply that unusual means of charging 
> jump capacitors were at least difficult.


Under CT, specifically High Guard, this was allowed more or less by the
rules.  So you had exploration ships, used in pairs, with no Jump Fuel,
but lots of extra capacitors and PP fuel - still less massive than the
Jump Fuel - and J6 drives.  They would use their lasers to charge up their
capaciters and jump 6 along.  They didn't need to refuel for about a year.
Instant super explorers.

When DGP retconned in the explanation for the Starship Operaters Manual,
it always seemed to me that it was just to stop this kind of silliness (I
never did like the explanation, but it was better than the alternative).


> > The main point involved using the Black Globe to shield the ship from a 
> > planet's gravity well, he argued that gravity is just another form of 
> > energy, so at 10-100 diams it could suck gravitons and power the j-grid and 
> > jump, and the ship would be safe from the effects of the gravity well.
> 
> I think this might be "low-grade" energy, and require extra 
> capacitors at the very least. That's if you turn the globe off to 
> jump...

Gravity is different from electromagnetic radiation (light, radio,
micrwaves, etc.).  I was always under the impression that black globes
stopped Electromagnetic radiation.  Besides, given the level of Gravity
control available in Traveller, wouldn't the 3rd Imperium have figured out
how to do this if it was possible??

of course, my response to players who try to munchkinize like this is to
say "try it and find out", and then kill them.

Peter Engebos                 <pengebos@nmsu.edu>
T'Sarith, Lord deGaalth            <tsarith@io.com>
          http://web.nmsu.edu/~pengebos/

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 09:48:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...

> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 09:37:38 -0800
> From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
> Subject: Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...
> 
> At 01:05 AM 3/23/97 PST, Leonard Erickson wrote:
> 
> >Recoil depends on the mass of the dart, and the muzzle velocity. So
> >it's no harder to manage than for a firearm with the same mass*velocity
> >of the projectile. Note that this is *momentum, *not* "muzzle energy"!
> 
> Question:  It's always been my understanding that a gauss rifle would have a
> lower recoil due to the fact that the is accelerated over the length of the
> barrel, not suddenly by the explosion of a powder charge.  Am I
> misunderstanding something?

Yep.  The reason that a rifle attains higher muzzle velocities than a
pistol is that the long barrel allows expanding gasses to continue
accelerating the round through a greater distance.  In fact, one of the
central optimization problems involved in rifle and rifle ammo design is
putting in exactly enough propellant that the combustion-product
overpressure behind the bullet is just approaching zero as the round
leaves the barrel.  Too little propellant, and friction from the
additional barrel length slows the round more than the tiny remaining
pressure accelerates it over the last part of the barrel.  Too much
propellant, and some of it is wasted as a puff of gas as the bullet leaves
the barrel.

A gauss weapon of muzzle velocity V and length L, firing rounds of mass M,
will have less kick than a chemical rifle of the same parameters, because
for a gauss weapon the acceleration is (nearly) constant over the length
of the barrel, while for a chemical rifle the acceleration is slewed
toward the near end of the barrel.  But in both cases the same net
momentum (M*V) is transfered to the rifle (and thence to whoever is
holding it), and as the total transit time down the barrel is measured in
milliseconds, the difference will be hard to notice.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:59:36 -0700
From: Eric Holmes <holmes_eric_t@lanl.gov>
Subject: Re: Cloning  --  LONG

Dear Fellow Clonies:

Have been reading with some interest the discussion of 
cloning in the current news and the TNL.  Here are my
thoughts.

First, let me speak from my experiences as a biologist.
In 1973-1974, I learned in basic and advanced high
school biology the process of one natural cloning
method and one artificial cloning method.  I won't
discuss twins just yet.

The first natural method was known as parthenogenisis,
"virgin birth."  It occurs in several species, the one
we studied was a lizard, the Genus species escapes me,
but the clone produced was only female because the
source DNA was female.  This species only produced
females.  What hormone caused the process escapes
me but I recall that there was a definite lack of
any male hormone in the species.  Any biologist out
there, please confirm.  The joke in class was that
there was only one recorded "virgin birth" in humans.

The next exposure to cloning was through the simulated
fertilization of, I believe, the pickeral frog.  The
G.s. escapes me again.  Here we took a fertile female,
ready to release her eggs.  When she let go, we pricked
each egg with a glass needle, simulating the penetration
of the sperm.  The eggs began to divide after several
hours.  Noticeable changes occurred within 24 hrs.  The
results, again, all females.  Approximately 50% success.
We used the surviving frogs for fish bait as musky,
pickeral and pike were always in season.

A quick flash forward to 1997.  Dolly, as she is known,
makes the news.  A ewe....female sheep for you...awe
never mind.  Anyways...I haven't read the recent journals,
but I am sure the fact that she is female has some bearing
on the above discussions.  There may be some predisposition
involving the female sex and cloning....If I recall its
the presence of the XX pair of chromosomes and
their natural propensitiy for replication.  If you have
read the news, she was the one success out of 300
attempts.  A rate of 0.3%.  Notice how the success rate
has fallen in artificial cloning as the complexity
of the organism has increased.  I don't know the
ratio of the chromosome pairs between the two
species.  Anybody know?

Now race to TL 15/16....The clone in question is
female compared to the source of the DNA.  Did we
perpetuate the female clone?  Was this result
on purpose?  Knowing the predisposition of
the female chromosome for replication, maybe the
former result is expected and predisposed.  Okay,
so you're asking where are we going.

Cloning should be difficult, even at TL 15/16, and
maybe the results can only be female.  Oh gosh, I
can here the comments from the ladies now. The
production of a male clone might be exorbitant.

With lower organisms, there is an assumed imprinting
of "knowledge" we call instincts.  These do not vary
from subject to subject animal in the same Genus
species. These instints cause the animal to act in
a fairly predictable manner.

Consider basic instints in the human.  Having raised
three children and assisting with four grandchildren...
now you really know how old I am..I don't think
any scientist, psycologist or nanny for that matter,
can prepare a cloned human to act in a predictable
manner.  Knowledge is not inate nor can it be
imprinted in the current technology.  Basic reactions
to hunger, thirst, cold or heat may be imprinted
due to neurological design.  Emotions...fear, anxiety,
etc are learned and developed.  From that stand point,
I can see implantation of knowledge but not emotions.
Basically I see the human clone as a semi-robot,
knowledge without emotion.

The question begging to be answered...Can the
human body adapt to huge amounts of data dumps
in a matter of seconds, hours, days.  IMO, I
think not.

Let's consider what I was told in 1976, in an
anatomy class.  The human brain had the capacity
of storing information that would be held in
a mainframe computer that would cover around
2 million square feet with racks of seven to
eight feet tall.  That's like taking a
single story 2000 sq ft ranch style house and
building it 100 stories tall.  Not considering
the advancements in computer technology, cloning
and installing basic knowledge then becomes an
expensive proposition.  Please consider the fact
that I have not brought up advances in artificial
intelligence (AI) or the creation of robots,
cyborgs and androids.  Anybody have details or want
to expand on this?

So...what's my vision?

I agree with some of Christian Razukas scenarios
for clones except #4.  Don't take me wrong.  I
believe in using animals for experiments and the assisting
of human kind.  I'm a biologist, remember?...I can
see I'll have angered the Animal Rights Lobby.  The
conflict I see is in organ compatability, the
increases in infection and rejection, and biological
mismatching.  Okay, I didn't consider advancements
in antibiotics and other drugs.  While Christain
did not consider writing about cloning humans for
organ donation, maybe that is a scenario for a war
over the rights of clones.  Maybe a thought provoking
scenario for the player characters.

SOAPBOX:
Whether humans are ever cloned or not, I think each
clone should be considered an individual.  When we
look at multiple, identical births...Nature's 
other cloning method...each individual, while
predisposed in many ways, has experiences that
are treated differently by the individual, and
knowledge gained is a little different between
individuals.  Attitudes, opinions, etc are
formulated differently.  I won't step into
the area of mental or sensory perception links
between these types of individuals even though
I've witnessed the connection.
OFF SOAPBOX

I agree with Merrick.  Clones are basically twins.
See above.  But consider at what stage of life
they are created from the source individual and
what level of knowledge needs to be developed.

Is the clone created from an adult?  Then the
knowledge base of the clone would be far removed
from the source individual.  The emotional base
would similarly be far removed.

Is the clone created close to the birth of the
source individual?  The knowledge base and the
emotional base should be close, maybe varying
only by 15%.  At this point we're near the realm
of twins.

Is the clone created before the birth of the
source individual?  Now we have entered the
realm oof twins.  Knowledge and emotional
base are about the same, differing by maybe
5%.

Then consider physiology.  A clone, if properly
cared for should develop into a _similar_ like-
ness of the source individual.  Neglect or
Supercare could create a totally different
individual.

Knowledge, as Jeff Harvey stated, could be the
product of AI implants.  Then why worry about
schools, training and EDU?  I point back to the
expenses of AI and implants.  High cost and
low return for the value.  The cost of the 
human clone becomes too high to consider
unless you're in the shoes of Strephon,
Cleon or the like.

Clones then become an agricultural method for
producing high quality food at low cost.  Think
of my experiences with the frogs and a cheap
source of bait for my pike fishing.   Consider
the creation of the hypercow and the hypersheep
producing huge quantities of milk, beef, wool or
mutton...nuttin but muttin??..Oops, my fantasy
mode.  Consider the hypergrain stuff, producing
protein laced carbohydrates.  High quantities,
of high quality food at reasonable prices.

BTW, one GDW game had battalions of clones
supported by a company that used the battalions
as a peacekeeping force on their planet, keeping
the natives and the trade unions at bay.  These
battalions were called "MyKin" battalions, based
upon the fact that all the members of the batallions
were clones of the commander.  My copy is under
boxes since we're renovating in the house.  Can
anybody confirm my summation of this game, as
well as its title?

See ya later.

Eric

That star, first one on the left and then
on forever.


              ~~~~~
             (-0^0-)
- ---------oOOo--( )--oOOo---------
Educate  --  Lead  --  Serve

Eric T. Holmes, Safety Engineer
JCI Technical Assurance Department
Health and Safety Branch
PO Box 50    MS: G750
Los Alamos, NM 87544

Tel:  505-665-4894
Fax:  505-665-1887

Voice Pager:  104-1628

              ~~~~~
             (-0^0-)
- ---------oOOo--( )--oOOo---------

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:10:38 -0700
From: Eric Holmes <holmes_eric_t@lanl.gov>
Subject: Cloning...Correction to math

Fellow Clones:

Refer to Para 11.

Please correct my maaaaaath.  This
sheep couldn't divide 2 million by
2000 and get 1000 stories.

Baaaad Sheep,  Baaaad Sheep.

Eric

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 09:55:02 -0800
From: Jeff Cornish <jcornish@appiantech.com>
Subject: RE: Meson question and Graviton quesiton

On Monday, March 24, 1997 6:19 AM, Nicolas
LEJEUNE[SMTP:nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr] wrote:
> Meson question -----------------------
[snip]
> But in the other hand, As the time slows with speed, is it correct to give
> the next explaination :
> 
> I accelerate the Meson particle to the speed where the time flow is 10^-16s
> per second of a static observator. In 1s (of the observator) the particle
> would 'live' its average life span. the particle degenerate 1s after its
> creation in the observator scale. The particle which speed is realy near
> lgith speed covers the 10 hexes is 1s
> 
> So to reach a specified range with a Meson gun you just have to calculate
> the velocity of the particle (which has to be VERY VERY precise indeed)
> 
> Does it sound correct?

I always assumed that with knowledge of gravatics, the technology to
manipulate the strong and weak nuclear forces was developed.  With
mesons, it's a matter of manipulating it so they won't decay until you
want them to.

> 
> 
> Graviton question ---------------------
> 
> I'm thinking of another quesiton, about graviton quesiton.
> 
> I am in a gravity field of a planet for example. Who radiates gravitons
> ?(me or the planets) and in which direction? (toward each other, or in
> backward direction)
> 
> And the traveller related question is : how Contragrav devices interfere
> with the graviton flow?
> 

Actually it's a bit easier to think of gravity in terms of the geometery
of space/time.  Gravitational fields are just 'dents' in the 4-d space
geometery (imagine a 2-d space--like a rubber sheet--in 3-d hyperspace;
a gravity field is a warp/dent in the 2-d universe--objects simply slide
down the slope)  Contra gravity either creates an 'equal/opposite' warp
on the 'lee' side of the mass, or nulls the slope that its on (like
poking the rubber sheet so that there's a flat area on the slope)

> 
> Thanks in advance for replying
> -----------
> Nicolas LEJEUNE
>    Engineer, Paris, France
>    Traveller (TNE), and WhiteWolf RPG
>    Mailto:nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1101
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Monday, March 24 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1102



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...
Re: Meson question and Graviton quesiton
Re: genetic knowledge
Re: Rabbit Hunting
Re: Templars
Re: Falling Anvils and stuff
re: Meson question and Graviton quesiton
Bug Bill
Irrelevant drivel
Orbital stations
Punching Battlesdress
Genocidal players & work - live
Re: Spinward Marches Campaign (Maps)
Re: Spinward Marches Campaign (Maps)
Re: Meson question and Graviton question
Re: Cloning
Re: Where are we?
Re: Where Are We?
Re: Cloning

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 09:14:09 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...

James Lindsay wrote:

[snip]
>
>My initial point about recoil stemmed from the 9 pound TL12
>linear accelerator pistol design (with a 15cm muzzle and a muzzle
>velocity of 1,500 m/s) that was submitted to the list.  That's a
>terrible amount of recoil to deal with all at once!  Since FF&S
>only lists gyroscopic stabilization (not really recoil
>management) and stock-mounted recoil pads (not applicable to a
>pistol design), I began wondering what the recoil might be like.
>
>If the technology were to exist to negate that recoil, it would
>require *at least* the same energy used to propel the projectile.
>And that's assuming 100% efficiency for both the weapon and the
>recoil management mechanism.


     Well, according to FF&S the recoil on it was minimal; approx 1.54.
I've just rechecked it, and it would seem that I was right the first time.
Without the gyroscopic compensation it was 6.175, which seems a little more
in line; it's almost all an average human can do to handle the recoil from
one shot.  So basically, I think that the recoil compensation part of the
FF&S gauss gun sequence must be a little bust.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:14:39 -0800
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: Meson question and Graviton quesiton

At 09:55 AM 3/24/97 -0600, Peter  H. Brenton wrote:
>Contragrav prevents the gravitons emitted from nearby sources from
>affecting the space in the area of effect of the contragrav by
>'refracting' or bending the particles around the area of effect.  For this
>reason there may be an area of marginally increased gravity immediately
>around the contragrav area of effect (really, I'm making this up as I go
>along!).  It is marginal because the graviton waves are all displaced for
>a large area by one another.  
>
>Basically, gravitic technology centers around making an "immunity zone"
>where gravity is nullified, or (in the case of inertial compensators and
>grav floor plates) creating a small scale distortion by emitting 'fake
>gravitons' in a limited area.  Please, don't ask me to elaborate.

Oh great.  I see your psionic conditioning is breaking down, and the
secrets just come pouring on out.  Another outburst like that and we'll
have to send you to a re-conditioning planet.  

These Solomani spies are _really_ worthless sometimes.  Hmph.


- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:14:35 -0800
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: genetic knowledge

At 10:20 AM 3/24/97 -0500, pierre-louis constantin wrote:
>    3) 'genetic' knowledge:  Well, there are some fairly new
>theories that claim that knowledge isn't just stored in the way
>neurons are connected together but that in fact it can be encoded
>into proteins!   That way, all of the cells in the body can have a
>certain amount of knowledge.  

Some interesting work along these lines was done in early 1980s, and could
be extended for a Traveller campaign. There's good evidence that activity
in a neuron is coded in proteins held in the Golgi complex inside the cell
(obfuscation: send the players on a wild goose chase based on fragmentary
information about "the Golgi complex", only to find out it's not a set of
buildings or a psychosis after all :) ).  Whether these proteins code for
specific experience or something else isn't known, but as I recall
experiments with fairly simple animals (planaria and aplysia) show some
knowledge transfer from just these proteins.  

So (hand-waving on) you might be able to posit a non-invasive MRI-like scan
(personal opinion: MRI scanning is really TL10! :) ) that picks up on and
records the patterns of enough of these proteins stored in enough of the
neurons that they can be reproduced in a clone.  This would give you a
rough starting set of experiences and memories; the better, longer, and
more detailed the original scan, the better the behavioral match in the
clone.  Of course, as the brain is a nonlinear system, the clone would be
almost certain to demonstrate odd or even aberrant behaviors from time to
time ranging from gaps in knowledge to sudden changes in mood or action.
Thus, a doppleganger clone could never be _totally_ trusted, and would need
to have knowledgeable handlers nearby (faux-Cleon and his most inner circle
of advisors?).  



- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:30:57 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Rabbit Hunting

At 09:21 AM 3/24/97 -0600, Pete wrote:

>As a contrast, working a Boy Scout rifle range (Parker Mt. Scout
>Reservation, Barnstead NH) when a chipmunk crossed the range.  As soon as
>the thing arrived in the firing range area there was ....  complete
>silence .... the range director said "cease fire" *after* everyone had
>stopped to watch the cute little chipmunk swiftly cross to the other
>side and go up over the embankment (although one person did a little
>chipmunk imitation saying "ohshit! ohshit! ohshit!" over and over until he
>left the range in a falsetto voice).

ROTFLMAO!

>If a bunch of 12-17 year old 'scouts can listen to the instruction "If any
>living thing enters the range, cease fire immediately", Why can't a bunch
>of pros?
>
>Of course, maybe if they'd had automatic weapons...

Well, the main difference is that they were Boy Scouts, and we're Soldiers.
We *like* shooting a dumb animals that wander onto live ranges like deer,
chipmunks, and 2nd Lieutenats.  

I could tell about the time I fired a Barrett Light .50 and hit a squirrel..
My spotter's only comment was "damn, power up the wave-motion gun!" as
vaporized squirrel floated off into the trees...

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   in clown outfits.    -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:49:03 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Templars

At 07:11 PM 3/23/97 -0800, you wrote:



>Additionally, when high-ranking Templar survivors were brought before
>religious courts of inquiry following the destruction of the Order, they
>are reputed to have confessed to worshipping a deity named 'Baphomet' and
>a relic called 'Caput LVIII M" (or possibly 'Virgo' rather than 'M'), a
>metal rendering of a male human head.  The latter was never accounted for,
>though all the bastions of the Order were looted by Phillip and others. 
>This would make a fine Ancient artifact in the updated version. 

>> T>In time, the Templars became truly staggeringly wealthy, attracting the
>> T>avarice and fear of European nobility and high clergy.  King Phillip of
>> T>France finally crushed the Templars and siezed their assets in a sudden,
>> T>brutal campaign, killing many members of the Order (including the Grand
>> T>Master) and forcing the rest to flee or go into hiding.  Tracking where
>> T>these latter knights ended up has been one of the most popular conspiracy
>> T>theorist games for the last five centuries; the Masons and Rosicrucians
>> T>both rank high in most theories.
>> 
>> Change Philip of France to his Imperial majesty Cleon I, and you've a
>> wonderfully dark edged and compelling political background to M0 (which I
>> haven't got yet - is there any suggestion of political infighting in this
>> book?).
>
>My thought exactly.  One lovely final twist to the tale, to help set this
>tone:  When Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Master of the Templars, was
>being prepared for burning at the stake in Paris, he is said to have
>pronounced a terrible curse on the royal lineage of King Phillip.  Within
>a year, Phillip and many influential members of his court were dead, along
>with the Pope who had assisted in betraying the Templars.
>
>However, the *really* cool part didn't happen until more than four
>centuries later.  When King Louis XVIII of France (direct lineal
>descendant of old Phillip) was guillotined, a voice from the crowd shouted
>"Jacque de Molay, thou art avenged!"  It appears Templars have *long*
>memories, and *lots* of patience... 

Hmmm... another take on this:

The Templars were a Rule of Man organization, acting much as the Earthly
Templars did, guarding trade routes, etc., but secretly investigating the
reasons for all these human races, and the mysterious Ancients.  Near the
end of the RoM, an Emperor became jealous/fearful of their power, and
destoyed them.  Or so he thought.  The organization went underground.

It's possible that the Long Night was a Templar retaliation against the RoM!

Now, fast foward to the dawn of the Imperium.. Why is Cleon so determined to
expand to Spinward?  Could he, or his advisors, be Templars who belive that
they at last have the secret of the Ancients, and that it lies somewhers
beyond Deneb?

What exzctly did the Templars learn?  What artifacts did they carry off
during the crusade against them?  What if the Third Imperium is just a
Templar plot, to unknown ends.

A campaign set with this backround could be quite paranoid, with the PCs
slowly learning about this group, and discovering their shadowy hand
maniuplating affairs throughout known space...

BTW: A good read on the conspiracy side of the Templars is "Holy Blood, Holy
Grail."  

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   in clown outfits.    -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 97 20:02 GMT0
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Falling Anvils and stuff

In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9703212148.A11299-0100000@zen.sunderland.ac.uk>

<< All this talk of orbital bombardment using crowbars and anvils had me 
thinkmof the possible stratigic escalation that will inevitably happen 
with such weapons. You'll go onto high velocity death by falling fridge 
and falling pianos. Then the quantum leap your enemy will unleash the 
ultimate weapon the Safe, which you then reply to with 15 ton weights 
(with 15 tons written on them) where will it all end? >>

With an enormous Pythonesque foot?

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

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 12:24:52 -0800
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: Meson question and Graviton quesiton

>I accelerate the Meson particle to the speed where the time flow is 10^-16s
>per second of a static observator. In 1s (of the observator) the particle
>would 'live' its average life span. the particle degenerate 1s after its
>creation in the observator scale. The particle which speed is realy near
lgith speed covers the 10 hexes is 1s
>So to reach a specified range with a Meson gun you just have to calculate
>the velocity of the particle (which has to be VERY VERY precise indeed)


This is the cannonical explanation, in fact.

There are two main problems with it which have to be waved away with
indistinguishable-from-magic technology:

(1) Boosting a pi-0 meson to have a lifetime of 1 second takes a tremendous
amount of energy per particle - probably beyond even theoretically
practical particle accelerator design. You're somewhat better off using
other mesons, like the K-0, which have somewhat more moderate lifetimes.

(2) The lifetime of a meson isn't a little ticking clock guaranteed to
always go off at 10^-16s; it's a half-life - a statistical average. Mesons
start decaying immediately; by 10^-16s half of them are gone, by
2x10^-16 seconds 75% are gone, etc. A meson beam would have a continous
stream of decays all along the length of the beam - and always more
decays the closer to the firing ship.

This latter gets handwaved away by assuming that miraculous damper 
technology lets you set the internal clock so that each meson *does* have
a definite lifetime. From a QM standpoint this is illegal, of course, but
it lets meson guns work.

(The cancer-treatment experiments that Miller et al were almost certainly
thinking of when they invented the meson gun - which deposit almost all their
energy in brain tumors without depositing much in the intervening tissue -
work because they use charged mesons, which (like all charged particles)
initially deposity little energy as they pass through a solid,
only dumping most of their energy after they've slowed down a little.
The decay of the meson after it stops provides an extra burst of energy
at the end. This only works for charged particles travelling through moderate
amounts of solid matter...)

Bruce

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

Date: 24 Mar 97 16:03:06 EST
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Bug Bill

>> >>What size of a relativistic 0.1 c rock do you think we 
need to use to  >>destroy Redmond, WA ?  >>  >  >Now THIS 
is neat - relativistic rock discussions with practical 
applications!  >  >---------------  >Bill Rutherford  
>worj@topgun.cinecom.com  >  >    

Really want to bug Billy (Cleon) Gates?  Buy OS/2!   <<

Ah, yes, like committing seppuku to criticize our Master's OS?

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

Date: 24 Mar 97 16:02:57 EST
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Irrelevant drivel

>> Hi,    Please kindly surf to and bookmark our Beach 
Resort Website  
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/1528/hotel.htm     
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require any 
further  information.    Thank you    Regards,    Isaac 
KWONG  Information Technology Department  Beringgis Beach 
Resort <<

Not only a spamming bastard, but an _incompetent_ spamming 
bastard; there were two copies in my digest. 

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

Date: 24 Mar 97 16:02:59 EST
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Orbital stations

On this subject of orbital stations, good or bad defence 
policy, I'll point out that neither lasers nor (especially) 
particle weapons are going to be much good in system 
defence launched from the ground. Lasers will be deflected 
by bad weather and PAWS won't work at all. 

Also, a ground base can't take evasive action; it might be 
slow, but your orbital platform _can_ move if it has to. 
And it can also run a black globe if one is available.

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

Date: 24 Mar 97 16:02:55 EST
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Punching Battlesdress

>> I have never heard of anyone punching a fist, foot or 
head though a piece   of steel.  I seen bricks and wood 
broken, but when the brick is part of a   wall the bones 
break first.  I don't think anyone in battle dress would   
worry about martial arts attacks unless the attacker were 
wearing battle   dress.  I will be proved wrong when 
someone punch or kicks though the   side of a car.    
Striker; Panther TL 6 side - 15;  Battle dress TL 14 - 18  
Striker II; Armored car TL4 - 4;   Battle dress TL 10 - 4 <<

True, but for BD to move, there must be joints, and those 
joints will be flexible. That flexibility will allow impact 
to be transmitted through to the occupant. Hitting them 
barehanded would be a tough job, though.

[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]
| Hugh Foster                                 100326,446       |
|   http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Hugh_Foster     |
| An expert is one who knows more and more about less and      |
| less. (Nicholas Butler)                                      |
[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]

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

Date: 24 Mar 97 16:03:02 EST
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Genocidal players & work - live

>> The problem is is that my players don't just get 
homicidal, they  get *GENOCIDAL*; frying hordes of 
defenseless TL-0 aliens with a ship's  laser is just gravy 
to them.  I shudder what they'd do if someone had  actually 
like, say, sold them a defective wristwatch or something... <<

I think I have the trump card on this thread; my players, 
having stolen the Star Trigger from the Darrians, have just 
dropped it into Kirruvirax - the star of the K'kree home 
world (btw the only major race home system never written up 
in a canon publication!). "We've just fried a hell of a lot 
of donkeys!" was the noble and empathic comment.

In case you think I'm playing 
Monty-Haul-Vorpal-Sword-Every-10'-Room, btw, it has taken 
nearly ten years _real time_ gaming to get to this point. 
What with fishing the special arm cruiser _Tormtor_ out of 
the Shionthy asteroid belt where it'd come to grief, 
getting it going, fighting a Borg invasion (dinnae ask!), 
and facing a K'kree invasion of the Imperium, they've had a 
busy ol' time. 

It's a good job I don't have to count Dark Side points!

[Craig Berry] >> After much pondering, I'm going to stand 
by my statements.  On the whole,  with the exception of a 
few percent of the population, peoples residences  follow 
their jobs.  Often, a region will have a few base 
industries (like  aerospace, entertainment, and information 
processing [banking, software,  investing] in Los Angeles, 
where I live), plus a huge cluster of support  businesses 
for the people in those industries (shopping malls, grocery 
 stores, restaurants, home builders and sellers, movie 
theaters, and so  forth). <<

Well, to a point. However, consider history. In the early 
industrial period (early 1800s to WW I), people generally 
lived within walking distance of their workplace, at most a 
train ride; or at them, as with farmworkers. As time has 
progressed, however, we have people commuting further and 
further to their places of work - in large part because 
living nearer is becoming either prohibitivelty expensive 
or dangerous or unpleasant. So I drive from Warrington to 
Stockport every day - 20 miles - where a hundred years ago 
folk in Stockport might have gone to Liverpool once a 
_month_. In t'south of England, people I know commute a 
hundred miles or more to work every day. In Japan the crazy 
salarymen ride the Hokkaido for _hours_ every day to get to 
work. 

Now expand this to the 57th century, where interface 
transport is dirt cheap, either by grav vehicles or 
beanstalks. Maybe not every day, but I can see people 
commuting to orbit to work each week and coming home - to 
the ground - at the weekend. 

[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]
| Hugh Foster                                 100326,446       |
|   http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Hugh_Foster     |
| Faith goes out through the window when beauty comes in at    |
| the door.                                                    |
[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 20:06:47 +0000
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Spinward Marches Campaign (Maps)

FKiesche@concentric.net wrote :   <<However, I started
fiddling with the maps in Supplement Three in order to be able to do some
coding myself using colored pencils. I photocopied the maps, cut them out
and taped them together.>>

Something that I've tried myself, a long time ago. I came across an
interesting PD programme for the Atari ST that had atlases for the
Imperium, but more intriguingly it allowed you to set the filters of what
you wanted to see, and then print the output. Shame I haven't found
anything similar for the Mac yet.

    -Dom Mooney- dom@cybergoths.u-net.com
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
"But everything is still the same; passing the time, passing the blame.
We carry on in the same old way, we'll find out we left it too late one day,
 to say what we meant to say." - Marillion
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 20:06:47 +0000
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Spinward Marches Campaign (Maps)

FKiesche@concentric.net wrote :   <<However, I started
fiddling with the maps in Supplement Three in order to be able to do some
coding myself using colored pencils. I photocopied the maps, cut them out
and taped them together.>>

Something that I've tried myself, a long time ago. I came across an
interesting PD programme for the Atari ST that had atlases for the
Imperium, but more intriguingly it allowed you to set the filters of what
you wanted to see, and then print the output. Shame I haven't found
anything similar for the Mac yet.

    -Dom Mooney- dom@cybergoths.u-net.com
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
"But everything is still the same; passing the time, passing the blame.
We carry on in the same old way, we'll find out we left it too late one day,
 to say what we meant to say." - Marillion
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 13:13:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Meson question and Graviton question

> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 15:19:01 +0100
> From: Nicolas LEJEUNE <nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr>
> 
> Meson question -----------------------
> 
> I've read in a book that Meson(quark-antiquark) particles have a life span
> of 10^-16s before their degeneration in two gamma photons. This life span
> is too short to do a very long distance of several hexes.
[snip, jump to proposed mechanism]
> I accelerate the Meson particle to the speed where the time flow is 10^-16s
> per second of a static observator. In 1s (of the observator) the particle
> would 'live' its average life span. the particle degenerate 1s after its
> creation in the observator scale. The particle which speed is realy near
> lgith speed covers the 10 hexes is 1s
> 
> So to reach a specified range with a Meson gun you just have to calculate
> the velocity of the particle (which has to be VERY VERY precise indeed)
> 
> Does it sound correct?

That is precisely how it would work.  Of course, one must do some
additional handwaving, as the meson lifetime is a random quantum decay
process, not a sharp single lifetime; in other words, half of all mesons
produced will decay before 10^-16 seconds (in their own rest frame), half
after.  But some will decay much sooner, and some much later; you get a
slightly skewed Bell curve centered on the mean lifetime.  Thus, using
physics as we know them, it seems impossible to put more than an
insignficant fraction of your mesons inside the target at the moment they
decay; the vast majority will go off early or late, and be pretty
harmless.

Thus, a practical meson gun would need to somehow tinker with the quantum
nature of meson decay itself (paging Mr. Greg Bear...) to 'focus' the
decay into an unnaturally tight 'window'.

> Graviton question ---------------------
> 
> I am in a gravity field of a planet for example. Who radiates gravitons
> ?(me or the planets) and in which direction? (toward each other, or in
> backward direction)

Gravitons are the mediating particles of gravity; you and the planet
exchange them, sort of.  Be aware that this is a terrible
oversimplification; it's equally valid to say that the planet and you both
warp the four-dimensional structure of spacetime such that geodesics curve
in fourspace in a manner which manifests as an attractive force between
you and the planet.  Coupling the geometric view of gravitation to the
quantum mechanical view is one of the Holy Grails of physics, the unsolved
portion of the Grand Unified Theory.

> And the traveller related question is : how Contragrav devices interfere
> with the graviton flow?

Using Cavorite, of course! :)

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 20:42:04 +0000
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Cloning

Leonard wrote:

<<In mail you write:

> I think the key to clones is that they should have near identical STR, DEX,
> END, and possibly INT. But EDU and SOC should vary with task and training.
> Of course, if you are looking for the excessive abilities shown by
> replicants in Bladerunner, why not generate using 2d6+3 or just pick the
> stats.

Even STR, DEX, and END are affected by training. We don't really have
(real world) INT defined well enough to say one way or the other.>>

I was thinking more of a way to bias the stats high to represent specific
training/genetic manipulation. The clones (replicants) in Bladerunner are
more really geneticlly engineered human replacements? They are designed to
be superior... However, I agree with your point.

<<> I recommend the book "Cyteen" by CJ Cherryh. It goes into depth on cloning
> like nothing else I've read, and ties it to a excellent political Sci-Fi
> thriller.

She has *several* books that deal well with the Azi (clones). >>

Yes- but Cyteen seemed the most appropriate. But there's also -

40,000 on Gehenna
Downbelow Station (in passing)
Not sure about any others...

Later

    -Dom Mooney- dom@cybergoths.u-net.com
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
"But everything is still the same; passing the time, passing the blame.
We carry on in the same old way, we'll find out we left it too late one day,
 to say what we meant to say." - Marillion
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 13:19:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Where are we?

> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 09:54:51 -0500 (EST)
> From: SirBStard@aol.com
> 
>       I know we are on the Pegasus arm. I think we are over half way out on
> it. I know we are 500 Light Years from the stars that make up Orions Belt.
> They are farther in along the arm towards galactic core. This is what I know
> off the top of my head. Hope it helps.

OK, you don't get to be navigator on *my* ship. :)  Orion is almost
exactly in the opposite direction from the Galactic Core.  The latter is
in Sagittarius, while as anyone who's been under dark skies in late winter
knows, Orion is just south of Gemini and Taurus, way over on the other
side of the zodiac.  By the way, a nice piece of sky orientation to know
is that Orion's belt stars lie almost precisely on the celestial equator.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 16:45:21 -0500 (EST)
From: pawn@CAM.ORG (Glenn Grant)
Subject: Re: Where Are We?

Brian Caball asks,

>     All this recent talk about the size of the galaxy has got me thinking,
>where exactly are we, in relation to the arms? Ie, how far inside the arm are
>we? Does the published maps of imperial space protrude out beyond the arm?
>I'm sure someone out there has the answer (though it's quite possible It's been
>said already and I missed it).

D.K. / Keith's Brother replies,

>      I know we are on the Pegasus arm. I think we are over half way out on
>it. I know we are 500 Light Years from the stars that make up Orions Belt.
>They are farther in along the arm towards galactic core. This is what I know
>off the top of my head. Hope it helps.

According to Henbest & Couper's _Guide to the Galaxy_ (Cambridge, 1994),
this isn't too accurate, D.K. I've never heard of a "Pegasus Arm" - usually
our region is known as the Local Arm or the Orion Arm. The Orion complex
itself lies to rimward and trailing of the Sun, not coreward.

If you draw a map with the Orion Arm running left to right, angling
slightly downward to the right, the Core is very far off the top of the
page, spinward is towards the left, trailing to the right. On this map, the
Orion Nebula, the Orion Molecular Cloud, and the Orion OB1 Association are
all down and to the right of the Sun, roughly 1600 light years away. The
Belt stars are a bit closer, having recently emerged from the star-birth
factory inside the Nebula.

The Perseus arm is farther out to rimward. The Sagittarius Arm swings past
us to coreward. It's bigger than the other arms, a 'grand design' spiral
that wraps right around the Galaxy.

Astronomers used to think that the Orion Arm stretched from Cygnus (to
spinward) to Orion, and thus some suggested that it was only a minor
offshoot of the Perseus Arm, called the "Orion Spur". But more recent
measurements have revealed that the Orion complex actually lies somewhat to
rimward of the main path of arm named for it. The Orion Arm is not so
minor, and stretches from Cygnus to Vela.

It is (I'm guessing) very roughly 1500 to 3000 light years across,
depending on where and how you measure it. The Sun lies roughly in the
'middle', but closer to the coreward edge than the rimward edge. Speaking
of 'edges' is not really appropriate, though, because the Arms are very
ragged, clumpy, and hard to define. They're mostly defined by their loose
'dust lanes', patchy chains of giant molecular clouds (GMC's) and gaseous
nebulae, and also by the bright star-birth regions associated with these
clouds. Other than the young, bright, massive O and B type stars, which
don't burn long enough to wander out of the spiral arms, the star
distribution is pretty much uniform, in and between the arms. The gaps
between the arms have less dust and gas, but the about the same density of
long-lived stars. The gaps between the arms are between 1000 and 2000 light
years across, but in some places the arms seem to merge. In other spots,
one arm seems to split into two.

To see scans of some of the fantastic maps in _A Guide to the Galaxy_,
point your web browser at the Local Interstellar Medium page:

        <http://spacsun.ric.edu/~TWG/lism.html>

Hope this helps,

Glenn G.

...weirdly excited at the prospect of all that nifty Hipparchos parallax
data to be published (finally!) in May.

...not to mention "Blue Sky on Mars", the new Matthew Sweet CD, being
released tomorrow at last. Woohoo!

"There's no difference
   between the Earth and the sky
There's no reason
   we have to die."
            - Matthew Sweet, "Falling"

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 18:36:27 -0500 (EST)
From: pawn@CAM.ORG (Glenn Grant)
Subject: Re: Cloning

Eric Holmes <holmes_eric_t@lanl.gov> says,

>In 1973-1974, I learned in basic and advanced high
>school biology the process of one natural cloning
>method and one artificial cloning method. 
>The first natural method was known as parthenogenisis,
>"virgin birth."  It occurs in several species, the one
>we studied was a lizard, the Genus species escapes me,
>but the clone produced was only female because the
>source DNA was female.  

From _Biology_ (2nd Edition), Neil A. Campbell (Benjamin/Cummings, 1990) -
a really terrific basic biology text I stole from one of my roomies - page
932:

   "Parthenogenesis has a role in the social organization of certain
species of bees, wasps, and ants. Male honeybees, or drones, are produced
parthenogenetically, whereas females, both sterile workers and reproductive
females (queens), develop from fertilized eggs.
   "Among vertebrates, several genera of fishes, amphibians, and lizards
reproduce exclusively by a complex form of parthenogenesis requiring
doubling of chromosomes after meiosis to create diploid 'zygotes'. For
example, there are about 15 species of whiptail lizards (Genus
Cnemidophorus") that reproduce exclusively by parthenogenesis. There are no
males in these species, but the lizards imitate courtship and mating
behavior typical of sexual species of the same genus. During the breeding
season, one female of each 'mating' pair impersonates a male. The roles
change two or three times during the season... In fact, ovulation is more
likely to occur if an individual is mounted by a pseudomale during the
critical time of the hormone cycle; isolated lizards lay fewer eggs than
individuals that are allowed to go through the motions of sex. Apparently,
these parthenogenetic lizards, which evolved from species having two sexes,
still require certain sexual stimuli for maxiumum reproductive success."

I'm designing one of the sophont species for my campaign based on this
pattern. Also, I've developed a genetically-engineered all-female Clade
(variant species) of humans known as "Parthens" who reproduce this way.

>The joke in class was that
>there was only one recorded "virgin birth" in humans.

Joking aside, I suspect that it is possible, and it might well be happening
all the time. Some of the books I've read on twins and on reproductive
genetics suggest that there may be rare conceptions in which the sperm
triggers cell division, but for some reason none of the male's genes are
taken up. This would result in a daughter who is a genetic twin of her
mother. Ever meet a girl who looks so much like her mother's old photos
that it's spooky?

When we invent technology capable of quickly and cheaply sequencing a
person's genes, I suspect we are going to find that a surprising number of
women (maybe 1 in 100,000, say) are genetically identical to their mothers.
But this is pure wild speculation on my part.

Well, all this talk about clones should motivate me to finally finish that
article about clone societies in Traveller, which I've been promising to do
for months now...

Glenn G.

- -----------------------Glenn Grant-----------------------  
                      <pawn@cam.org>
Web: <http://helios.physics.utoronto.ca:8080/ggrant.html>
"The courts may not work anymore, but so long as everyone
      is videotaping everyone else, we'll be okay."
                    -- Marge Simpson

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1102
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Tuesday, March 25 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1103



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Ship to Ship Combat (Long)
Re: Irrelevant drivel
Re: Rabbit Hunting
Re: Killing battledress - resend
Misjump mishaps
Re: Templars
Re: Spinward Marches Campaign: Maps
Subject: Re: Templars
Re: Genocidal players & work - live
The long and winding road! (work there - live here)
Re: Misjump mishaps
Re: Templars
Re: Subject: Re: Templars
Re: Cloning
The True History of Hiver manipulations of the K'kree

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 17:48:36 -0500
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: Ship to Ship Combat (Long)

I have received several comments and questions on the ship combat rules
I posted awhile back. Here is a few more thoughts and explanations:

Hit Points:=20
I did not tie the hit points directly to tonnage in some sort of 1:1
ratio because the ships in Traveller range from a 10 ton fighter to a
million ton dreadnought. The problem is ether small ships that are
vaporized with one hit, or hundreds of thousands of hit points for the
big ships. I wanted small ships that could survive, and I hate lots of
unwieldy numbers. So I had to find a way to flatten the curve.=20

The formula, Hit Points (HP) =3D Integer (Square root of ship tonnage)  X
(base 10 logarithm of ship tonnage), seems to do it and provides
manageable numbers at all sizes:
Tons HP   %
100  20   20.0%
200  32   16.0%
400  52   13.0%
(snip)
12800     464  3.6%
25600     705  2.8%
(snip)
800000    5279 0.7%
1000000   6000 0.6%

Big ships are weaker as far as the HP ratio goes. But the upper limit on
damage caused by my weapons reduces the impact of that problem. In other
words, a big ship is still more survivable. See example below more a
better understanding.

The actual hit points would be ~20% or higher then above for some
technology, hull design and/or armor bonuses.

Critical Hits:=20
I never liked the High Guard / Traveller
one-critical-hit-and-you're-out-of-the-game rule. No reason to spend
trillions on big ships, as they are just too weak. If you have to fight
a base, or planet, forget it. One good whack, and most of the invasion
fleet is nothing but critically hit hulls crashing on the ground.=20

I feel that big ships should be able to take lots of damage before
losing any combat effectiveness. And the really big ships will have to
be ganged up on, or they will crush the enemy fleet. Only after the ship
has absorbed several rounds of punishing fire will it start to effect
operations. I think of Traveller capital ships as close relatives to the
old WWI and WWII Battleships.  Most of the time they took HUGE amounts
of damage before losing any of their punch. Very survivable. (Until
damage passed a certain point, then it was goodbye: they would turn
turtle and sink, sometimes with guns still firing!)=20

Until Traveller comes up with a effective ship killing weapon that can
be carried by small craft (never happen in my game!) the Big Battleship
Fleet will rule space. The little boys are like the old biplanes:
scouts, forward observers or running around picking off critically
damaged ships.=20

And for PC=92s in small ships it was just too quick.=20
BANG! "Uh, your fuel tanks just got vaporized. Sorry."
No progression, no building of suspense. I didn=92t like it at all.

That is why I base the chance of getting a critical hit on the ratio of
damage received to damage left. Or the formula:
=09
Damage Ratio =3D Damage received that turn divided by (Damage remaining -
Damage received that turn)

By having the critical hit chance be entirely part of how much damage
the ship has taken, a ship can survive the first few hits. Or even many
little hits with little trouble. It may be a little faster during the
game to base critical hits on some total number of points or on a roll,
but that is not how I envision ship damage. This system requires only
one quick calculation, and provides me with the results I was looking
for. Damage that gets worse as the game goes on.

Also, my critical hits are not the ship killing results (unless you get
hit enough, then the damage passes your damage controls ability to fix)
of HG or T4. Once more, that is unfair to the big ships, and I like big
ships in my game. :-)

For Example:
Here is a 50,000 ton TL 14 ship. It gets pounded each turn by a spinal
mount (Type J or K or something) doing about 200 points per turn. (Until
the last few turns when they stop firing the big gun and switch to bay
and turrets, or other small ships to close in for the kill)=20

HP      Damage  Total   Hp      ratio   Avg.    Avg.=20
                Damage                  CriticalNumber
1336    200     200     1136    0.2     33%     0.5
1136    200     400     936     0.2     33%     0.5
936     200     600     736     0.3     50%     1.0
736     200     800     536     0.4     67%     1.7
536     200     1000    336     0.6     100%    3.5
336     200     1200    136     1.5     100%    10.5
136     100     1300    36      2.8     100%    10.5
36      36      1336    0       DX             =20

The Average Critical is the percent chance of actually getting a
critical hit on the ship. =20
The Average Number shows the average number of critical hits the ship
will take that turn, if any. =20

So on the first turn the 50K ship has about a 1/3 chance of recieving a
critical if it gets hit with 200 points. That is probably only one
critical hit, if any. Like I said, this is TEMPARARY damage. If the crew
has any type of DC (Damage Control) the critical hit will be fixed,
fast. But the system will NOT be at 100%. In other words, if the drives
get hit, they will drop off-line. In the same turn (it is 30 minutes
after all) the DC crew can try to fix it. If they succeed, the ship is
back, but at -1 to the drive.=20

By the 5th hit the crew is getting swamped. Bad things are happening all
over the ship and the crew has to pick their fights. The ship has
probably suffered 7-10 critical hits by now and is will not be moving
very fast (if at all).=20

The next 200 point hit probably puts the ship out of the fight. 8-13
more critical hits, (average of 10.5) in one turn! Time to start
thinking about survival. =20

Example 2:
Now here is a TL 14 100,000 ton ship, outfitted the exact same way. It
takes exactly the same amount of  damage as the 50k ton ship above in
the exact same order:
HP      Damage  Total   Hp      ratio   Avg.    Avg.=20
                Damage                  CriticalNumber
2012 200  200  1812 0.1  17%  0.2
1812 200  400  936  0.1  17%  0.2
1612 200  600  1412 0.1  17%  0.2
1412 200  800  1212 0.2  33%  0.5
1212 200  1000 1012 0.2  33%  0.5
1012 200  1200 812  0.2  33%  0.5
812  100  1300 712  0.1  17%  0.2
712  36   1336 676  0.1  17%  0.2
676                      Total     2.3

Not bad. Only has 676 points of damage left, but has only suffered about
2.3 critical hits! Compare that to the 20 or so on the 50k ship.

Damage Control can easily keep up. It may be moving a little slower, and
the hull will look like it has been through a shredder, but who cares!
It can still fight!! Yes, it will require a major refit to repair all of
those hit points, but hey, which ship would you want to be on in a
battle.=20

Lets look at what happens if that ship gets hit with ALL those points in
one turn:
HP      Damage  Total   Hp      ratio   Avg.    Avg.=20
                Damage                  CriticalNumber
2012 1336 1336 676  2.0  100% 10.5

Major hit! That ship just received 8-13 critical hits (average of 10.5)
verses the 2.3 from above. DC will have trouble keeping up, but that is
still not the 20 plus that the smaller 50k ship received above. It may
be able to still fight! ("I have not yet begun to fight!!" The Capt.
cries out!)

Now I can explain why the Imperium has all of those 500,000 ton
Dreadnoughts and 100,000 ton Battleriders hanging around. With the HG
rules I would have just built as many small cheap ships wrapped around a
meson gun as possible. No fun for the big ship fan.

By the way, I allow more than one Spinal Mount per ship in my game. So
for example the TL-15 500,000 ton Tigress Class has 6 big Meson Guns,
7500+ Hit Points and 6 of those were a holy terror to the Zhodani 40th
fleet during the FFW! I did this to get rid of the thousands of turrets
carried by big ships. Took way too many rolls and too much time. Now I
can have a really fun big ship slugging contest, with a role for all the
escorts and fighters; picking off the easy targets or protecting the
crippled ships attempting to pull back from the line to save the ship.

This ratio works just as good at the 100-800 ton level as well. Factor
1-6 weapons do about 1-20 points of damage and the ships have about
20-150 Hit Points. Perfect for player characters! They can get hit a few
times without too much critical damage, but they know that unless they
do something fast, their ship is going to be slag due to all the
critical hits in the next turn or two. This is exactly the results I was
looking for. Something that works across the entire spectrum of ships in
the Traveller universe, is quick, solves the "why big ships question",
and offers good role playing potential with plenty of suspense for the
PC's.

I hope this helps, and I appreciate any and all feed back.

Bob

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 00:43:33 GMT
From: starwolf@sn.no (StarWolf)
Subject: Re: Irrelevant drivel

On 24 Mar 97 16:02:57 EST, Hugh Foster <100326.446@CompuServe.COM>
wrote:

>
>>> Hi,    Please kindly surf to and bookmark our Beach=20
>Resort Website =20
>http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/1528/hotel.htm    =20
>Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require any=20
>further  information.    Thank you    Regards,    Isaac=20
>KWONG  Information Technology Department  Beringgis Beach=20
>Resort <<
>
>Not only a spamming bastard, but an _incompetent_ spamming=20
>bastard; there were two copies in my digest.=20
>
>
Hey, what is this shit?
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Myhre                 |"Never worry about theory as long as the=20
http://home.sn.no/~starwolf | machinery does what it's supposed to do."
Universal Internet          |
            Number: 127772  |                  -- R. A. Heinlein

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

Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 20:32:19 +0000
From: Mused <marz@HotStar.net>
Subject: Re: Rabbit Hunting

Peter H. Brenton wrote:
> If a bunch of 12-17 year old 'scouts can listen to the instruction "If any
> living thing enters the range, cease fire immediately", Why can't a bunch
> of pros?
> 
> Of course, maybe if they'd had automatic weapons...

Semi-auto (FN FAL). It had been a long, miserable rainy day and everyone had a lot of 
pent-up energy

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

Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 20:30:53 +0000
From: Mused <marz@HotStar.net>
Subject: Re: Killing battledress - resend

Bill Rutherford wrote:
> 
> At 02:09 AM 3/24/97 EST, you wrote (considerably snipped):
> 
> >...player in that campaign came up with the idea of an adhesive attached
> >explosive device.  Not very pratical as he wasn't able to get close
> >enough to attach the device.
> >
> 
> The Brits had a similar device, the grenade, anti-tank, mark whatever (don't
> recall the number) - better known as the sticky bomb.  It didn't prove very
> practical, either...
> 
> PS - This was back in WW II...

New Item for BD - TL C Zimmerit: stops those annoying glue mines

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 12:33:49 +1100 (EST)
From: Michael Barry <mbarry@pcug.org.au>
Subject: Misjump mishaps

I find standard misjumps pretty boring. Jump, oooh, nausea, pop out 
somewhere else and find your way home. How about some of the following 
misjump effects (possibly for mild and/or extreme misjumps)
1. Time dilation/contraction. The jump occurs (whether to the original 
destination or a randomly determined one), but the time taken varies 
wildly from expected. The misjump could take minutes, or hundreds of 
years! 
2. Jump field intrusion. The jump field is distorted, and intrudes upon 
the ship interior. This may happen slowly or quickly, biting a chunk out 
of the ship computer or surgeon. 
3. Jump fibrillation. Part of the ship, perhaps the jump drive itself, takes 
off at jump-36 towards the Galactic Rim. The rest of the ship stays where it 
is. Fill in the blanks. (thanks to Larry Niven for this one!) 
4. Permanent jump field effects, eg synaesthesia. The neurological 
effects of the misjump do not wear off for a particular crewmember. She 
experiences permanent synaesthesia, a condition in which certain senses 
are jumbled together with others. After a period of adjustment, this 
condition is no longer debilitating, just weird ("Hey, quit shouting red 
daggers at me!" 
Synaesthesia is occasionally also associated with particular advantages 
such as photographic memory, artistic or musical ability. 
5. Other mild neurological conditions such as attention deficit 
hyperactivity disorder, Tourette's syndrome, dyslexia on either a 
temporary or permanent basis. 
6. Glandular malfunction. The traveller's glandular system reacts very 
badly towards the physics of jumpspace. This may trigger mood swings, 
depression, hyperactivity, diabetes, or even glandular obesity. Effects 
may be temporary or permanent; traveller may require hormone therapy or 
gland transplants in order to function normally. 

**************************************************************************
Michael Barry
mbarry@pcug.org.au               <--- checked daily

TOM: "I'm going to opium dens! Yes, opium dens, dens of vice and 
criminals' hang-outs, Mother. I've joined the Hogan gang, I'm a hired 
assassin, I carry a tommy-gun in a violin case! I run a string of 
cat-houses in the Valley! They call me Killer, Killer Wingfield, I'm 
leading a double life, a simple, honest warehouse worker by day, by night 
a dynamic tsar of the underworld, Mother."
Tennessee Williams, _The Glass Menagerie_
**************************************************************************

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 17:42:42 -0800
From: "David P. Summers" <dsummers@mail.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Templars

We have...
>However, the *really* cool part didn't happen until more than four
>centuries later.  When King Louis XVIII of France (direct lineal
>descendant of old Phillip) was guillotined, a voice from the crowd shouted
>"Jacque de Molay, thou art avenged!"  It appears Templars have *long*
>memories, and *lots* of patience...

and, in the follow up....
>The Templars were a Rule of Man organization, acting much as the Earthly
>Templars did, guarding trade routes, etc., but secretly investigating the
>reasons for all these human races, and the mysterious Ancients.  Near the
>end of the RoM, an Emperor became jealous/fearful of their power, and
>destoyed them.  Or so he thought.  The organization went underground.
>
>It's possible that the Long Night was a Templar retaliation against the RoM!
[deletions].
>BTW: A good read on the conspiracy side of the Templars is "Holy Blood, Holy
>Grail."

If one is interested in conspiracies, one might check out GURPS
Illuminati.  Especially since it mentions the Templars.

FNORD.  Just think, and illuminated Traveller campaign.  The
players might actually believe none of it is real!  FNORD.

:-)

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

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

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 22:43:51 -0800
From: "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Spinward Marches Campaign: Maps

>Red Zones (interdicted...but the big question is: Do I let them know
>***why*** these worlds are interdicted??????)

Yes and No.  For the most part NO.  There are probably a couple you'll find
interdicted for obvious, and known reasons.  Others, they shouldn't know.
For example if I remember correctely there is a mothball fleet somewhere in
the Marches with stuff like an Azhanti High Lightening Cruiser (this is
from the last MegaTraveller supplement, which isn't handy so I'm probably
messing this up big time, but it's just an example).  Something like this
would be pretty well known, at the same time it would be interdicted by the
Navy.  After all this system would be a good source of ships/parts.

>Amber Zones
>Jump Routes
>Political boundries (Imperium, Imperium allied states, Sword Worlds,
>Vargr, Darrians, unaligned states)
>Water worlds
>A starports...B starports...through a map of worlds with E starports...
>Imperial Navy Bases
>Scout bases
>Non-imperial navy/scout bases
>Worlds over xxxx in pop
>Worlds under xxxx in pop
>Gas giants
>Asteroid belts
>Jump route map

Basically they would have all this information in the computer.  After all
it's standard star chart type info.

>"Official" trade route maps, e.g., which worlds Oberlides visits, the
>Aramis subsector lines, etc.

This could be pretty cool, do it up as a broucher from Oberlides.


>"Unoffical" trade route maps, e.g., all the J1 clusters like the Spinward
>Main

Hmmm, this could be something like a route sketched out on a napkin from a
bar.  Or someones memoirs.

>Legends...the only one I've got so far is "The Abyss" from a Challenge
>article about the space around Victoria/Sonthert/Ylaven where...according
>to the author...the pirates may lurk...

Rough to do up, best left as something to tell the players at random points
during the game such as the old drunk at the bar.

>As they get deeper into the Marches I may produce new maps to show the
>stages of various Frontier Wars, the extent of the old Darrian
>Confederation, the extent of the devastation caused by the Darrians,
>Chirper Worlds, Droyne Worlds, worlds where traces of Aslan or Varry or
>others have been found...

Gotta keep those maps up to date.  It sounds pretty ambitious though.  You
might want to just give them info like what worlds have fallen, and leave
it up to them to keep a record.  If they are bad record keepers....

>I'm open to suggestion: Any other items I should highlight on these maps?
>Remember that we are dealing with the "Classic" era, so I can't go too
>far into the future...no viral pathways, for example...

Ancient sites!  If I remember correctly there are at least three known
sites, and at least one of these is a tourist site I think.  These would
almost definitly be marked on any detailed starchart.

               Zane




| Zane H. Healy                    | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh@ix.netcom.com (primary)  | Linux Enthusiast          |
| healyzh@holonet.net (alternate)  | Mac Programmer            |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------+
| For Empire of the Petal Throne, and Traveller Role Playing   |
| see http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/                      |

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 21:56:22 -0500
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Subject: Re: Templars

"Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net> wrote:

>>The Templars were a Rule of Man organization, acting much as the Earthly Templars did, guarding trade routes, etc., but secretly investigating the
reasons for all these human races, and the mysterious Ancients.  Near the end of the RoM, an Emperor became jealous/fearful of their power, and
destoyed them.  Or so he thought.  The organization went underground.
It's possible that the Long Night was a Templar retaliation against the
RoM!

Now, fast foward to the dawn of the Imperium.. Why is Cleon so
determined to expand to Spinward?  Could he, or his advisors, be
Templars who belive that they at last have the secret of the Ancients,
and that it lies somewhers beyond Deneb?

What exzctly did the Templars learn?  What artifacts did they carry off
during the crusade against them?  What if the Third Imperium is just a
Templar plot, to unknown ends.

A campaign set with this backround could be quite paranoid, with the PCs
slowly learning about this group, and discovering their shadowy hand
maniuplating affairs throughout known space...>>>



Ah yes... now we are getting to the real reasons for:
Why the Third Imperium never expanded past the Spiward Marches!
Why the Third Imperium has the highest tech!
The "real" reasons the Zhodani were always attacking! (none of this
silly stuff about "slowing the 3I down...")

Its all getting very clear now, ... (did they find something?...)

Or is it just a Hiver plot?

Bob

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 22:28:02 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: Genocidal players & work - live

Hugh Foster wrote:

>
>>> The problem is is that my players don't just get
>homicidal, they  get *GENOCIDAL*; frying hordes of
>defenseless TL-0 aliens with a ship's  laser is just gravy
>to them.  I shudder what they'd do if someone had  actually
>like, say, sold them a defective wristwatch or something... <<
>
>I think I have the trump card on this thread; my players,
>having stolen the Star Trigger from the Darrians, have just
>dropped it into Kirruvirax - the star of the K'kree home
>world (btw the only major race home system never written up
>in a canon publication!). "We've just fried a hell of a lot
>of donkeys!" was the noble and empathic comment.
[snip]

     Well, actually, I think that roasting the K'kree is a very good
thing to do;

     a) they're vegetarians (and really obnoxious about it to boot),

      b) cooking meat prior to eating it generally makes for a
better-tasting meal, permitting among other things marinades and other
culinary frills, and

     c) lowers the risk of disease or parasite infestation.

     Please extend my congratulations to the PC's for having made the
universe safer for barbeque-lovers everywhere...

<coming soon: the Famille Spofulam Patio Furniture division's
"Bandersnatchi Mega-BTU"-model Fusion+ barbeque>.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 97 22:20:07 -0600
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: The long and winding road! (work there - live here)

On 03/24/97 at 04:03 PM,  Hugh Foster <100326.446@CompuServe.COM> said:

> As time has progressed, however, we have people commuting further and 
> further to their places of work - in large part because 
> living nearer is becoming either prohibitivelty expensive 
> or dangerous or unpleasant. 

Hugh, this is particularly true in the US. 

> So I drive from Warrington to Stockport every day - 20 miles - 

Amazing coincidence!  I drive from Pace to Warrington every day to work -
21 miles -, of course my Warrington is about 6,000 miles from your
Warrington. ;->

My parents lived 5 to 10 miles from their jobs..depending on the job..and
my grandparents were farmers, they lived where they worked.

It's common for people to commute much longer distances these days,
spending hours..literally..on the road morning and evening.  OTOH, the way
traffic is getting you can spend hours travelling and still only be
covering a few dozen miles. ;->  

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 22:44:51 -0600
From: Jeff Schmidt <jschmidt@netco.com>
Subject: Re: Misjump mishaps

>2. Jump field intrusion. The jump field is distorted, and intrudes upon
>the ship interior. This may happen slowly or quickly, biting a chunk out
>of the ship computer or surgeon.

This is exactly what I used in a beginning session last weekend.  The PC's
began as criminals (well, some were, some were falsely accused) in
cryosleep on an exile ship.  The local dictator is rather twisted (read:
insane) and enjoys sending traitors into exile on a nearby rock that used
to be a research base (research for what...? you might ask) before the
Collapse (yes, TNE).  One of the real criminals on board 'had and angle'
and had inserted an agent onto the crew, who then proceeded to botch a
recalibration of the jump as the drives were charging.  Misjump was
inevitable.  Part of the jump field collapsed and tore off a fuel module
and a cryo module (not the one the PCs were in, of course).  The rickety
old pre-Collapse crate couldn't deal with it and all hell broke loose...
electrical systems shorted, AG went haywire... and all the remaining
cryotubes failed.  Some actually had working safeties, and cycled down to
release the occupants.  Five in fact, coincidentally the number of PCs.
Thus began our adventure.

The moral of the story: Interesting misjumps can be fun.

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Schmidt                         | NetCo Communications Corporation
software engineer, Mac development   | 333 N. Washington Ave. Ste. 102
(612) 519-0878                       | Minneapolis MN 55401, USA
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 21:13:03 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Templars

At 05:42 PM 3/24/97 -0800, you wrote:

>If one is interested in conspiracies, one might check out GURPS
>Illuminati.  Especially since it mentions the Templars.

It's sitting on top of my copy of Milieu:0 as we speak.

>FNORD.  Just think, and illuminated Traveller campaign.  The
>players might actually believe none of it is real!  FNORD.

Sort of what I'm doing with a group of BIA operatives.. I think I'll add in
the Solomani Templar thing to really confuse them..

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   in clown outfits.    -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 21:28:47 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Templars

At 09:56 PM 3/24/97 -0500, Bob wrote:

>Ah yes... now we are getting to the real reasons for:
>Why the Third Imperium never expanded past the Spiward Marches!
>Why the Third Imperium has the highest tech!
>The "real" reasons the Zhodani were always attacking! (none of this
>silly stuff about "slowing the 3I down...")
>
>Its all getting very clear now, ... (did they find something?...)
>
>Or is it just a Hiver plot?

You want to get real paranoid?  What if this has something to do with why
the FIRST Imperium never expanded in Corridor, and why the Zhodani stopped
where they did.  What do the Darriens know, being the closest race to the
Ancient's homeworld(s).

What was the real cause of the Psionic Supressions... were the Institutes on
the verge of something?  Something the secret masters weren't ready to allow.

A conspiracy extending back over 5000 years.. now who could be behind this?

(Hint: He's scaly, has wings, is real smart, and has a real dysfunctional
family...)

As for the Hivers.. Perhaps the reason Hivers and Solomani never really
interacted was a shadow war between the Templars and the Hiver Manipulators.

I like where this is going...

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   in clown outfits.    -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 22:42:04 -0700 (MST)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Cloning

 
> Not entirely true.  As babies, we all apparently have the ability
> to breath AND swallow at the same time, as well as a fundamental
> ability to swim.  We seem to lose these abilities within the
> first year or so, but they *are* genetic.

Beathing and swallowing ceases to be possible as the neck grows.  I
belive that most other mamals can do this, we lose the ability as we
grow as a trade off for the ability to vocalize more sounds.  Any
physiologists out there?

- -Merrick

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 23:57:17 -0600
From: "K.C. Komosky" <umkomosk@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Subject: The True History of Hiver manipulations of the K'kree

     This was something that I came up with in the back of my mind a while ago. 
I read the brief history of the Hiver-K'kree war, then I started to read 
between the lines. I hope someone out there finds it interesting, or can 
even use it in an ongoing campaign.

oh yah, fwiw this document is copyright 1997 by K.C. Komosky, based off of 
material copyright 1979-1997 by FarFuture Enterprises.

     The Real History of Manipulations of the K'kree Race

(a transcript of a speech by M. Seldon to the Manipulations Club of Guaran, 
date: 032-1105)

     Greetings to my old friends this evening, and especially to our new 
colleagues, who have just tonight been granted their Manipulators status. 
Again, congratulations. I hope you have enjoyed the corndogs graciously 
provided by the Glethax Nest.

     But now that dinner is over, I urge you to all get comfortable and relax 
on all your limbs, as I will tell you of the Hive Federation's second 
largest ongoing manipulation.

     As you were all taught when you were yearlings, we Hivers first contacted 
the K'kree in -2045. Although we had long guessed that other races might 
have discovered jump drive, we were astonished to find that our first 
contact was with such a violent and uncivilized race as the K'kree.

     You have all been taught the details of the war that followed. Seven years 
after our first contact, K'kree vessels made suprise attacks on 12 of our 
worlds. By -2023, they had penetrated into Extolian Sector, and were 
threatening to capture Tryylin, the Ithklur homeworld.

     All of our past contacts with alien races had been solved by 
manipulations, so naturally enough the Manipulations Club was frantically 
studying the situation. Our most optimistic estimates were that it would 
take 850 years of constant manipulation for the K'kree to reach full 
civilization and be welcomed into our society. Unfortunately, our computer 
simulations of the war were that despite the formation of the Hive 
Federation and our new Hiver Navy, Guaran would fall within 25 years, Glea 
within 75, and the last Hiver world would be conquered in 125 years. We had 
to buy more time.

     You were all taught in your nests that M. Lentuli came up with a plan 
whereby several Hiver ships penetrated deep into the Kilong sector and over 
a period of five years successfully manipulated four worlds to deviate from 
normal K'kree culture by aberrations such as meat sauces for food and 
isolation as recreation. Then, after entering into negotiations with the 
K'kree and revealing our manipulations to them and threatening to change 
their entire society, they agreed to sign an armistice and withdraw to 
their pre-war boundaries.

     Since you all are now acknowledged master manipulators, you should now see 
the flaws with this story we tell our yearlings. Those five years are 
simply not enough time to perform a true manipulation on even four worlds. 
What was performed on those four worlds was nothing like a classic Hiver 
manipulation. Instead, a variety of psychoactive drugs and other 
mind-altering techniques were used to mentally "re-program" select 
K'kreer!. Our implied threat to the entire K'kree race was a bluff.

     M. Lentuli however realized that the K'kree would not realize the 
crudeness of our techniques, or that it was simply impossible for us to 
alter their society to any appreciable degree before we were trampled under 
their hooves. He realized that what we were doing is threatening the K'kree 
sense of superiority by attacking their very sense of themselves, of what 
made them superior.

     The K'kree acted exactly as M. Lentuli predicted. In addition to ending 
the war and withdrawing to antebellum boundaries (the last was a complete 
surprise to us, we only expected an end to hostilities), the K'kree 
immediately started a process of ensuring their cultural homogenity and 
stability. AND THIS IS WHAT M. LENTULI'S REAL MANIPULATION WAS.

     While the K'kree had always been a very conservative race, once they began 
these cultural pogroms they became a completely stagnant race. By being 
constantly on the lookout for 'Hiver-induced deviations', they completely 
stamped out what little creativity and initiative did exist. It is no 
accident that, with the exception of the short-lived K'kree-Vargr conflict 
of 1100 years ago, the K'kree borders have been completely stable.

     So, after M. Lentuli's initial manipulation, and constant but subtle 
reminders by various manipulators over the centuries, the K'kree have 
become a race completely afraid that any innovation or expansion is a sign 
of  "Hiver contamination". As long as we constantly maintain the quiet 
reminders, and don't let the K'kree learn of the true nature of our 
manipulation, they will never again threaten our Federation.

     Yes, I see a question from the back. "So, since well more than 850 years 
have passed since our first contact, why haven't the K'kree been 
civilized?". Good question. Well, studies have shown that the K'kree would 
have been one of the easiest major races to manipulate, because of their 
proximity and cultural continuity. Unfortunately, M. Lentuli's 
manipulation, by locking the K'kree into a single stagnant cultural model, 
has made the K'kree almost possible to manipulate.

     Well thank you for your time. I hope you will all join me for next week's 
banquet and our keynote speech, "Ongoing Manipulations of the Third 
Imperium".

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1103
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Tuesday, March 25 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1104



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Meson question and Graviton quesiton
RE: Subject: Re: Templars
Anti-BD
Bloodtree Rebellion
Re: Punching Battledress
Re: Gravitics
Re: Cloning .........(LONG)
Re: Cloning
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1103
Send in the Clones!
Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)
Re: Sticky Bombs
Re: Friendly Fire
Re: Gravitics (Truth and pseudo-science)
Air superiority
Re: Some world generation oddities... and OFFICIAL QUESTION
Re: genetic knowledge

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 14:27:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Meson question and Graviton quesiton

   Hi.

   Nicolas LEJEUNE[SMTP:nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr] wrote:

> Meson question -----------------------

> I accelerate the Meson particle to the speed where the time flow is 10^-16s
> per second of a static observator. In 1s (of the observator) the particle
> would 'live' its average life span. the particle degenerate 1s after its
> creation in the observator scale. The particle which speed is realy near
> lgith speed covers the 10 hexes is 1s

> So to reach a specified range with a Meson gun you just have to calculate
> the velocity of the particle (which has to be VERY VERY precise indeed)

> Does it sound correct?

   Yes.

   Actually, you don't need to be so very precise.  You accelerate the
   meson until its lifetime becomes long enough to travel to the target
   with ease.  Once striking the target, the meson decelerates to
   non-relativistic speeds, where its lifetime reduces to normal (which
   is less than 30 nanoseconds, depending on the type of meson).  It
   thus decays almost instantly once it has stopped inside the target. 
   This is how meson "guns" work in reality, where they are used for
   brain surgery.

   A weapon needs even less precision than a meson scalpel.  The only
   real concern of the gunnery officer will be not to supply so much
   energy to the mesons that they punch through the target without
   stopping.
    
> Graviton question ---------------------
 
> I'm thinking of another quesiton, about graviton quesiton.

> I am in a gravity field of a planet for example. Who radiates gravitons
> ?(me or the planets) and in which direction? (toward each other, or in
> backward direction)

   Well, in a static gravitic (or electric) field, the charges do not
   radiate gravitons (or photons), so there is no graviton flow (or
   light).  Gravitational radiation only occurs when you have an
   expanding or contracting mass, as in the case of a supernova.  This
   is somewhat analogous to the fact that electromagnetic radiation only
   occurs when you have an oscilating electric charge, as in the case of
   an antenna or a hot gas molecule.

   If you are refering to /virtual/ graviton exchange, then the
   gravitons are passed back and forth between you and the planet.  Be
   warned, though, that neither I nor anybody else really understand
   quantum gravity.  Treating gravity like quantum electrodynamics
   inevitably results in violating general relativity.

> And the traveller related question is : how Contragrav devices interfere
> with the graviton flow?

   If I knew, I'd be rich. 8^)  But carrying the analogy with
   electromagnetism a little further, one can imagine a type of "Faraday
   cage", a gravitic "conductor" that routes the gravitic field lines
   around your vehicle.  Fun stuff!

   Thnaks for asking physics questions; they are fun to think about.

   -Rob

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 00:09:00 -0600
From: "K.C. Komosky" <umkomosk@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Templars

>Ah yes... now we are getting to the real reasons for:
>Why the Third Imperium never expanded past the Spiward Marches!
>Why the Third Imperium has the highest tech!
>The "real" reasons the Zhodani were always attacking! (none of this
>silly stuff about "slowing the 3I down...")
>
>Its all getting very clear now, ... (did they find something?...)
>
>Or is it just a Hiver plot?

     Ahh, now you're getting close to the truth. Why start digging up 
moldy-oldy conspiracy theories like the Templars or the Bavarian Illuminati 
when we already have the Hivers.

<plug> and see my previous post for tantalizing hints about Hiver 
manipulations of the Third Imperium </plug>

     Oh, while I'm on the topic, if anyone of you have the time or inclination, 
doing a little bit of research on conspiracy theories is simply 
fascinating. A few suggestions:

GURPS Illuminati (still a terrible system, but a GREAT sourcebook),
Holy Blood, Holy Grail (mentioned by someone else, but worth another plug)
http://www.jbs.org (the John Birch Society online - read about how the 
Macarthy hearings really did discover commie spies in America),

and last, but definitely not least...

World Revolution, by Nesta Webster. A tremendously difficult book to find 
(I eventually got it through an inter-library loan from U of Pennsylvania), 
written in the 20s by some crazy woman who proceeds to explain how every 
event in the past 200 years is part of a Jewish-communist plot launched by 
Adam Weishaupt and the Bavarian Illuminati. AND SHE BELIEVED EVERY WORD OF 
IT!

     Why did I spend so much time and effort researching this stuff?

     You're not cleared for that.

K.C. Komosky
umkomosk@cc.umanitoba.ca

begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT
M>)\^(@(&`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$(@ <`
M& ```$E032Y-:6-R;W-O9G0@36%I;"Y.;W1E`#$(`0V ! `"`````@`"``$$
MD 8`% $```$````,`````P``, (````+``\.``````(!_P\!````0P``````
M``"!*Q^DOJ,0&9UN`-T!#U0"`````'1R879E;&QE<D!-4$=.+D-/30!33510
M`'1R879E;&QE<D!-4$=.+D-/30``'@`", $````%````4TU44 `````>``,P
M`0```!,```!T<F%V96QL97) 35!'3BY#3TT```,`%0P!`````P#^#P8````>
M``$P`0```!4````G=')A=F5L;&5R0$U01TXN0T]-)P`````"`0LP`0```!@`
M``!33510.E12059%3$Q%4D!-4$=.+D-/30`#```Y``````L`0#H!`````@'V
M#P$````$`````````DTN`02 `0`:````4D4Z(%-U8FIE8W0Z(%)E.B!496UP
M;&%R<P!T" $%@ ,`#@```,T'`P`9````"0````(`^P`!(( #``X```#-!P,`
M&0````$`& `"``L!`0F `0`A````-$5%1$4V0CE%,#,X0D,Q,4$R.4)%,C8Y
M-4,U0S$P048`:P<!`Y &`)@'```4````"P`C```````#`"8```````L`*0``
M`````P`N```````#`#8``````$ `.0"@-D((XSB\`1X`< `!````&@```%)%
M.B!3=6)J96-T.B!293H@5&5M<&QA<G,````"`7$``0```!8````!O#CC"#_W
MD2ASI-,1T)1Q```````````>`!X,`0````4```!33510`````!X`'PP!````
M&0```'5M:V]M;W-K0&-C+G5M86YI=&]B82YC80`````#``80X<C2- ,`!Q \
M!0``'@`($ $```!E````04A915-.3U=714%214=%5%1)3D=43U1(15)%04Q2
M14%33TY31D]2.E=(651(151(25)$24U015))54U.159%4D584$%.1$5$4$%3
M5%1(15-025=!4D1-05)#2$535TA95$A%5 `````"`0D0`0````0&````!@``
M!@H``$Q:1G7.!0XT_P`*`0\"%0*D`^0%ZP*#`% 3`U0"`&-H"L!S973N,@8`
M!L,"@S(#Q@<3`H,B,P]Z:&5L`R!$;.IG`H,T$PU]"H (SPG9XCL7GS(U-0* 
M"H$-L<$+8&YG,3 S%" +`_!L:3,V#? +517"# 'Z< -@= 60!4 *APMD$O)E
M# %C`$ @/AN_',1!*&@@>0>0+B"@(&YB;P?@=V4@"L A,&>%$@!T"X!G('1O
M(@#=%/ @%Z '0")R<P(@!" Y`A!R.ATO'C\<+E=H(GDB,U1H:0L@($DD;7 &
M<75M(-!E=M$$D"!E> JP;@VP)W -"K!S!4 B0E-P:7??"Q$%T K $; 'D"$C
MGR2O?R6_)L\GTQ' !" B0B= 9_<J82E!!9!H*I\KKRR_)S U(3 B(H(B(L<B
M0EIH>P1P`'!I(1$A80= *=!Y+00@80) `-!K(=$A(,8H(. H("!O9B(Q! !_
M,(\QGQPN`) 5$"W@*3!UEPW0(4 &X'4%0")S%S"'`_ AXB)1,TD@9"#P\FX@
MH2(I-]\X[QPO/;_S/L\_W4ET-C$5$2&6*$$Y+>!C;"*0!< @X2P@<2"B*&1I
M)W B02W@9K\+@"=P(P`'@#>1&J _(*&_/9]!ST+?1_])#TH>3P7 )P0`3E %
M0&IU*3%A(-Q(:2A""U!*L#\*BQMOOP'02P@+&4P)#((@,6A%P+4@XGD(8"<A
M:44P;Q'PZ2(&='([X&@@P"W"*3 G"L %0$8P9V<ATG5PPB $8&QD>2U84D4@
M^R,1*;!R`- MXP6P") $(.U0L&M5\2X292>@"V 1X,<W4 7 (D)"878*P <P
M_0.@2140)_ +@#90-7$4\/L#H"$B;"*!6,$1P"A (C,O3S,@D%'U4?4\"U!U
M9_X^(4!&X@G@6# MX$J0*##V:0A@!"!P5= %0"-1(@#W`' !D%"P>B'21V%#
M\CO#]T\T`X$%('4+8"' (Q(W8[DN+SPO7_-?#%/C3U11YUT``Q A,$DG* `"
M(%8T^F\IL&-%P :08$%4P#<T_U3!7?@AP > 6T(+@$4P7*/_`B!%P#T0(=)/
M$%"P`D!H4?YB3I$W81>@$? J,FBR6/^_!Y%.80"06N%&H2+P8URCVQJ@(,!!
M(T 'T7-@$"&0#RDP9)(CAE'U1U524'L%\%Q9*'(1%1%/$$K <K<%$ )@(3!S
M-B!*P&U%P 9B.^%/$$=214%4$T<!"'!C90;@;VLIVBQ1]4@&\"W@0A<P!'#;
M1<!X`T=94 ,1* > `C#[9)$HX6([,4<A-R(5`!'P_77T=Q=!(% `<$JP%/!/
M<@M@$$?F: ) <#HO+^)W?8 N:F(@D 6P(?"B*")"2F]H`Z!")U#Y;E%3;W# 
M$@`MX (@:_'](3 M(G(G<#NT-2 'X")"_2H@8U=1+=$4\%OQ&J $(-\B@CLA
M1C)&, 3P;RA"!:"^;5R0=7$IL&_"`Z!!!X#_!1"!H'=W4?5@4@M@*3!U]/\-
ML0N 3I 5`"W@>^%:("+A]G0@H5\,5P6P6& '\"@P_P;P.^!L0WHA!\!7,2VP
M=R#]=;%R<4)6@%K0"? ]$$[0_X+C#=!I8&10!4!W,B("1L.N*#SP*#$",'6"
MPV>'\7].D2) `V!@$'NR:[%U`2U]4+!B65!%`1<P`Y$#4B":53=24 GP`(!Y
M;%O@_P,`A4$A$ 40`D!=(82Q(D+?`= $('HE12!94'HMX'MP_P."70`B($J1
M=Q )@"]1(B#_*($+8H#S*#(MX(Y3DU8I$_\!T%'0('!;$DYA4B%MHT\0IDH'
MT 0`:"V#XG4#`+\I,4^2AH&:L"I1>@-!-4#_* "+,)HQFW %,6!26X]<E$EQ
M04Y$!@!(19V 16!,245619\`GZ%2DEDML$]2GP!/1B> _E0P=F<J+<)&,CSP
M;N",(?M'`5@P=6Y1:T-@4@W!%T&_;><\9&_R.V)/UF<J6534?X?B13,HX6'C
M$<"(8%\,2S0N0R# 2P-P5=!K>0M1]2?P:ZI30&-C+L<G\#51(A!B82Z!H%'U
M!1;!`*U0`P`0$ $````#`!$0`````$ `!S"P=YCXX3B\`4 `"#"P=YCXX3B\
?`1X`/0`!````!0```%)%.B ``````P`--/TW```=:SB\
`
end

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 22:26:37 -0800
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)
Subject: Anti-BD

>The Brits had a similar device, the grenade, anti-tank, mark whatever (don't
>recall the number) - better known as the sticky bomb.  It didn't prove very
>practical, either...

  Well, grab an AT grenade and a bamboo pole, and lunge... :)
Actually, how about a TL 6 squeeze bore ATR with tungsten ammo?
As for the 3D wound limit, um, but seriously?

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 22:26:42 -0800
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)
Subject: Bloodtree Rebellion

>the natives and the trade unions at bay.  These
>battalions were called "MyKin" battalions, based
>upon the fact that all the members of the batallions
>were clones of the commander.  My copy is under
>boxes since we're renovating in the house.  Can
>anybody confirm my summation of this game, as
>well as its title?

  Essentially, IIRC, but I didn't have time to read it.
        Steven Hudson

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 22:52:01 -0800
From: rdhough@orca.bc.ca (Richard Hough)
Subject: Re: Punching Battledress

>True, but for BD to move, there must be joints, and those
>joints will be flexible. That flexibility will allow impact
>to be transmitted through to the occupant.

False. It is possible to make rigid joints at TL 8, as in the NewtSuit. At
higher TLs it may be possible to make microscopic-accordion joints or
shape-changing metals.

Moreover, even TL 8 flexible ballistic cloth resists impact as well as
several mm of steel. When you can karate-chop a tank in half, you will be
able to do the same to battle dress, but not before.

- --
Richard Hough
rdhough@orca.bc.ca

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 22:51:57 -0800
From: rdhough@orca.bc.ca (Richard Hough)
Subject: Re: Gravitics

Peter  H. Brenton wrote:

>Basically, gravitic technology centers around making an "immunity zone"
>where gravity is nullified
[snip]

Why not then make an "immunity zone" around a jump drive so you can jump
cargo and passengers directly from planet to planet and not bother with all
this space travel stuff?

>or (in the case of inertial compensators and
>grav floor plates) creating a small scale distortion by emitting 'fake
>gravitons' in a limited area.
[snip]

Why not make this distortion in front of the ship so the ship constantly
'falls' forward, with no need for reaction mass? Ta daa, Newton's laws
repealed!

Seriously, the hard part in explaining Traveller technology rationally is
not coming up with technobabble describing what happens, it's preventing
this technobabble from predicting all kinds of things which are NOT
Traveller technology.

- --
Richard Hough
rdhough@orca.bc.ca

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 02:39:57 -0500
From: Jeff Harvey <jharvey@nlci.com>
Subject: Re: Cloning .........(LONG)

I would like to thank everyone for debating the issue of cloning, that I
initiated.  It has certainly given me a lot to think about.  I am not
looking for a "Paranoia" type situation.  However, I was thinking of
cloning as being a "fountain of youth", to a degree, for the extremely
wealthy.  At this point, I'm not certain how feasible this will be in
our futures, but RPG's are based on imagination and creativity, so I'm
gonna run with mine.  No one ever said that Traveller was a
"hard-science" RPG.  Here are some ideas that I have for cloning "rules"
in Traveller.

1)  The cloning of sentient life forms is highly illegal.  Because
clones have a "blank slate" for a brain, is irrelevant.  "Humanity would
not allow a person to be kept unwillingly in stasis.  (I percieve that
clones would be kept in "improved low-berths".)  It would be akin to
slavery.  (Obviously this rule will require a great deal of expounding,
but this is a brief overview.)

2) Cloning by tech-level:

     TL-11:  Cloning of "food sources" is legal, and readily used
on                 many worlds.  Especially on high-population worlds.

     TL-12:  Illegal experimentation with cloning of "humans"
begins.                 Although, experimentation is based on cloning
"human"                   embryos, in an effort to justify this
experimentation as                 a way to fight infertility, several
clones are advanced                 to "full term".  99.6% of these
clones die within the                   first year.  It is unknown how
many of thes clones lived                 full lives.

     TL-13:  Cloning of human embryos becomes standard practice,
yet                 still illegal.  There is a high black-market
value                      placed on these embryos.  Somewhere around 10
MCr's.                    Experimentation on genetically enhanced clones
begins.  

     TL-14:  Various worlds begin allowing embryo cloning
for                        infertility patients.  A great deal of legal
and medical                 documentation must be filed and approved. 
This would be                 considered a "last chance".  These worlds
allowed this                  in an effort to fight the black-market,
allow taxation,                 prevent "unsavory" medical practices,
reduce cost, and                  for regulatory reasons.  Illegal
experimentation still                  takes place in "full term"
cloning.  Success depends                    upon the rate of growth,
length of growth, and final age                 of the clone. (i.e. a
"full-term" clone "grown" for one                 year to the age of one
year would have an 85% chance of                 survival) There is a 4%
reduction in success based on                   rate/length ratio. 
(i.e. A "full-term" clone "grown"                   FOR one year TO the
age of two years would have an 81%                  chance of survival. 
A "full-term" clone "grown" FOR one
                year to the age of 20 years would have a 5% chance
of                   survival.  A "full-term" clone "grown" FOR five
years                   TO the age of twenty years would have a 69%
chance of                   survival.)  Genetic enhancement of clones
reaches a                     success rate of 40%.

     TL-15:  The Imperium begins cracking down on cloning "labs",
but                 illegal experimentation continues.  The 4%
success                      reduction in the rate/length ratio is
reduced to 1%.                    Genetic enhancement success rates
increase to 65%.                      Experimentation begins in memory
recording, implantation                 and transfer (from one person to
another). Success rate                 is .05%.  This experimentation is
not illegal, but is                   still questionable in many
societies.  (They realize                    where this research is
heading.)

     TL-16:  The reduction in the rate/length ratio is reduced to
.1%                 with a one to one ratio equaling 97% success. 
Genetic                  enhancement success is increased to 88%. 
Memory                        Recording and Implantation (MRI) is
increased to 15%.                   With the inability to stop
experimentation regarding                    cloning, clone "mules" are
legalized on various worlds.                 "Mules" may not be held for
any reason once they have                   been given "instruction"
into the tasks that they were                  created to perform.  The
price of a clone "mule" is                     15 MCr's.  "Mules" are
owned by the purchaser, but the                  owner MUST treat a
"mule" the same as he would any other                 employee, with
regard to pay, working time, and resting                 time.  All
"mules" have full civilian rights with the                   exception
that they MUST work for their owners for a                    minimum of
30 years.  They are also granted the right to                 purchase
themselves from their owners at ANY time.                      (Yes, I
realize that some slavery issues pop up here,                   it could
make for some interesting conflict/scenarios.)

     TL-17:  MRI increases to 40%.  Genetic enhancement increases
to                 95%.

     TL-18:  MRI increases to 65%.


3)  Finding a lab that is willing to make a "personal replacement" clone
will be an Impossible Task of Streetwise (-2 DM).  An enabling skill of
Bribery: Impossible (.05 MCr base) will reduce Streetwise to formidable
(-1 DM).

These are a few thought I have right now.  Obviously this will be VERY
lengthy before it is finished.  These are a few minor thoughts that I
have right now, but it's late, and I'm tired.  Many definitions will
need to be included as well as many, many rules regarding various
issues.  I am considering what attribute modifiers I should use and how
they could be "worked off" once the clone ages in the real world. 
Again, all thoughts are welcome.  Thank you in advance.

                              Jeff

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 02:46:14 -0500
From: Jeff Harvey <jharvey@nlci.com>
Subject: Re: Cloning

A quick apology for the crappy set-up of that last message.  I must be
tired.  I forgot that e-mail isn't a word processor!!!  :-)  Again, I'm
sorry.

                              Jeff

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 08:54:20 +0000 (GMT)
From: David John Yeardly <djy@st-andrews.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1103

Rabbit hunting

In all my time on a millitary range we never fired after the cease fire 
command was given or on poor defensles bunnies - although it has to be 
said that the fine for a ND ( negligent discharge ) probrerbl put us off 
as it is currently running at 600 pounds / round ( yes thats pounds 
stirling approx $1000)

Dave 

RNR and proud of it

.-  -.. ..--- ---.. .--.-

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 97 05:07:34 -0400
From: FKiesche@concentric.net
Subject: Send in the Clones!

Greetings:

So all this talk on cloning (both here in in society in general) got me 
thinking...Strephon's "double" (that may not have been a double...that 
may have been the original--you get what I mean) that came forward after 
the start of the Rebellion: Was he a clone, a robot/android or a person 
altered by plastic surgery (see Akira Kurosawa's brilliant film Kagemusha 
for a good backdrop to this aspect...).

The reason for asking: In working out possible plot threads for my 
Spinward Marches Campaign, I was wondering about a "Prince and the 
Pauper" kind of scenario where the PC's book a passenger who looks 
awfully darn familiar!

Thanks for any thoughts.



Frederick Paul Kiesche III
(FKiesche@concentric.net)
(Traveller since 1977!)
(Knight of the Third Imperium--Strephon Himself did it to me!)

"Travel in the company of this Ebokin delegation will be, to say the 
least, trying. Like most of her kind, the Fifth Speaker to the Lawless is 
a petulant, self-centered, and demanding individual."

- --The Traveller Adventure, GDW, 1983

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 97 12:47:00 PST
From: David Elrick <David.Elrick@ps.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)

> What do the Darriens know, being the closest race to the
> Ancient's homeworld(s).

More interestingly, why were the Darrians never able to build another   
working Star Trigger (having apparently built one and set it off)?

What are the Darrians *really* hiding about the Star Trigger?

Kind Regards

David Elrick

david.elrick@ps.co.uk

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------  
 -
You shall know the truth -
and the truth shall make you frantic.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------  
 --  

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 97 12:42:00 PST
From: David Elrick <David.Elrick@ps.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Sticky Bombs

> The Brits had a similar device, the grenade, anti-tank, mark whatever   
(don't
> recall the number) - better known as the sticky bomb.  It didn't prove   
very
> practical, either...
>
> PS - This was back in WW II...

Actually they worked very well against the early panzers (marks I and II)   
and armoured cars. However, once armour plate got thicker the only place   
to apply the sticky bombs to any effect became the base of the tank (and   
you find someone willing to crawl under a moving enemy tank and attach a   
bomb!).

As I recall, the American paratroops mocked up something similar at   
Bastogne against tanks as they rose up to go over earthworks.

Kind Regards

David Elrick

david.elrick@ps.co.uk

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------  
 -
The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal! Is it safe?
Oh, it's perfectly safe - it's just us who are in trouble.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------  
 --  

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 97 12:29:00 PST
From: David Elrick <David.Elrick@ps.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Friendly Fire

Pierre-Louis Constantin <Pierre-Louis.Constantin@DMI.USherb.CA> did the   
Darrian 'live long and prosper' wave and asked:
   

>         I'd just like to know if any of you have rules to handle
> gunfire misses in a cluster of friends and foe...  How do you decide
> if a friend was hit instead of the ennemy?

Unless the weapon is a shotgun or LAG, if the shot misses the intended   
target I just have the player roll the to-hit roll again once for each   
character around the target (closest character outwards) until the shot   
hits someone or we run out of characters to roll for.

Some of my friends apply minuses to the roll, increasing the minuses the   
further they get from the aiming point.

Of course, if the weapon is a shotgun or a LAG the damage gets shared out   
amongst everyone in the vicinity (including the intended target). Let   
no-one say I'm not generous! ;-)

I have heard of people making each possible target roll against Dex to   
get out of the way of the round, but I always assumed it was more a case   
of luck than dexterity.

Hope this helps you Pierre.

Kind Regards

David Elrick

david.elrick@ps.co.uk

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------  
 -
The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal! Is it safe?
Oh, it's perfectly safe - it's just us who are in trouble.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------  
 --  

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 10:56:46 +0100
From: Nicolas LEJEUNE <nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr>
Subject: Re: Gravitics (Truth and pseudo-science)

Richard Hough wrote:

>Seriously, the hard part in explaining Traveller technology rationally is
>not coming up with technobabble describing what happens, it's preventing
>this technobabble from predicting all kinds of things which are NOT
>Traveller technology.

So if a player ask you how the contrgrav works, you just answer "It works,
that's all! It's Traveller technology!"

Personnaly I much prefer give a 'Pseudo Science' explaination even if it's
a bit stupid or really far from the reality. Truth, reality (whatever we
can call it) can only be seen or understood through an image of it
(theory). As we are playing in anther environment we can have the reality
we want. That doesn't mean that we don't have to find a image
(pseudo-thoeory in theis case ) to understand it.

Those explainations generate many roleplaying even more when I play my
engineer character than when I am the GM. 

Personnaly I find the Peter Brenton's explaination interesting, even if I
don't use it. He has an image of the process in his mind and that's the
main point. 

And I don't care if it's not Traveller. In fact if we are 200 on this list,
there are 200 different Traveller games.


- -----------
Nicolas LEJEUNE
   Engineer, Paris, France
   Traveller (TNE), and WhiteWolf RPG
   Mailto:nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:40:18 +0100
From: Nicolas LEJEUNE <nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr>
Subject: Air superiority

I was wondering something about SL + Contra grav vs AF dogfight

The question is which configuration would have the best manoeuvrability and
by consequence the air superiority (assuming that the weapons are quite the
same type of course)

I'm detailing a little bit what i mean.

A SL+CG (without CG it would fly like an iron...) move in athmosphere as it
would do in space, assuming it uses a part of it's propulsion to maintain
speed because of the surrounded air.=20
It' acceleration is only given by it's propulsors. So if the ship/raft has
a G-rating of 3 he can only give a 3G burst in one direction.=20

Now for a AF plane. A simple 1G plane can use it's portance (I hope that's
the correct translation) to give a bigger acceleration than 1G in another
direction. I think (but I'm not sure of the numbers _at all_) that a
fighter like the F16 can handle from 6 to 9G depending of the mass it
carries. Regarding it's speed it might not have a thrust higher than 1G.=20

The AF configuration seems to be more efficient in dogfight maneuvers. More
than that, the SL+CG ship have to turn himself to provide thrust in one
direction. Although not stated in FFS, we can assume that the propulsor can
be oriented from +/-10=B0 to help manoeuvers, This ship wouldn't have a high
dexterity.=20
That's remembers me the old Astero=EFds video game, where you had a ship
(actually just a triangle) which provides thrust in only one direction and
can turn on himself. It was very hard to manoever and usually the course
was finishing in a rock (the other players a very glad that I'm not the
pilot of our starship :-)).=20
Assuming the flight computer is more than necessary in a SL+CG ship, the
trajectory corrections would usually mean that the ship is spinning in all
directions.=20
To overcome this problem, the ship would be equiped with mutiple propulsors
not only devoted to help the spin but also for regular thrust. The ship
don't have to turn on himself before providing main thrust. BTW I assume
that small propulsors are part of the hull and help the ship to rotate
before it can provide the main thrust which will slow down the ship itself.


So there are two quesitons :

1- What is your point of view on the air superiority of the AF
configuration on the SL+CG?

2- Would the AF+CG have a great advantage in manoevrability on standard AF
configuration?


P.S. All this thinking is build around a "regular propulsor" as Helpar or
propellors which provide thrust in only one direction. I don't know if
there is a orientable thuster agent (even in T4) which would reduces
partially the problem of spinning of the ship (thuster plates?)=20


- -----------
Nicolas LEJEUNE
   Engineer, Paris, France
   Traveller (TNE), and WhiteWolf RPG
   Mailto:nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 12:41:58 +0100
From: Carlos Alos-Ferrer <alos@merlin.fae.ua.es>
Subject: Re: Some world generation oddities... and OFFICIAL QUESTION

>From: "K.C. Komosky" <umkomosk@cc.umanitoba.ca>

>    First of all, I guess because of T4s CT legacy atmosphere types D,E, and F 
>were completely left out (those would be dense/high, ellipsoid and 
>thin/low).

        Indeed. I still haven't received M0. What has happened to the
planets with D,E,F atmospheres? Have they been changed? Could anybody check
e.g. Ar Chaa (Massilia 0932). In 1120, it had type D atmosphere.

>    Secondly, the quick chart telling what each tech level means hasn't been 
>changed from CT either. They list TL9 = 1990s. I don't know about you, but 
>I still haven't seen any 80s era TL8 gravcars.

        Yep. The MT TL table is much better. And, certainly, the detailed
tech level descriptions in the Referee's companion is not compatible with
the T4/CT TL table.

>    Lastly, they listed hydrosphere as 2D-7+Atmosphere. I remembered it as 
>- -7+size, and sure enough that is how it was in CT. Was this changed in MT 
>or TNE (being too lazy to dig either out).

        No, it was also 2D-7+size in MT.

        There is something more. In T$, the descriptions of type A and B
starports are identical!. For instance, it says that a type B starport can
build starships. In CT/MT, type B starports could only build non-jump
spaceships. This would be a major change in the Traveller universe. Is it a
typo?

        So, OFFICIAL QUESTION(s): Is the world generation going to be
reworked in the Deluxe Edition? Are the type B starport description and the
rule for creating hydrosphere typos?
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Alos-Ferrer                          E-mail: Alos@merlin.fae.ua.es
Dpt. Fundamentos del Analisis Economico     Phn: (34) 6 5903400, Ext. 3226
Universidad de Alicante                     Fax: (34) 6 5903685
03071-Alicante (Spain)                      "Thursuth gha kvaekh?"
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 06:30:46 -0500 (EST)
From: pawn@CAM.ORG (Glenn Grant)
Subject: Re: genetic knowledge

Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net> says,

>At 10:20 AM 3/24/97 -0500, pierre-louis constantin wrote:
>>       3) 'genetic' knowledge:  Well, there are some fairly new
>>theories that claim that knowledge isn't just stored in the way
>>neurons are connected together but that in fact it can be encoded
>>into proteins!   That way, all of the cells in the body can have a
>>certain amount of knowledge.

Eh what? Can we have some references on this?

>Some interesting work along these lines was done in early 1980s, and could
>be extended for a Traveller campaign. There's good evidence that activity
>in a neuron is coded in proteins held in the Golgi complex inside the cell
>[snip]  Whether these proteins code for
>specific experience or something else isn't known, but as I recall
>experiments with fairly simple animals (planaria and aplysia) show some
>knowledge transfer from just these proteins. 

Hold it. If you're referring to the planaria experiments from the '60's
(which lead Larry Niven to speculate about "RNA Injection Learning" in his
Tales of Known Space), you should know they were shown to be quite bogus. 

Experimenters repeatedly ran a bunch of planaria through a little T-shaped
'maze'; there was food at the left end of the 'T' but not at the right end.
Soon the flatworms learned to go toward the left each time. Then the
scientists extracted RNA from the trained flatworms' ganglia and injected
into the nerves of untrained flatworms. And what d'ya know - in the T-maze,
the untrained flatworms now turned left more often than right!

Clearly the RNA encoded some form of learned behavior. And this behavior
could be passed on to others simply by injecting RNA into a creatures
nervous system. Hence Larry Niven's characters learning languages and such
by RNA-injection. Seemed logical enough at the time.

But sometime in the early '80's (if I'm not mistaken), someone took a good
look at these experiments and found a major flaw in the methodology.
Re-doing the experiments with proper controls showed that planaria injected
with *any* RNA, whether from 'trained' planaria or even from *untrained*
planaria, tended to turn left more often than right. They weren't learning
from RNA-encoded knowledge at all - they were just messed up by the RNA
injections!

If this is not what you're referring to, do let us know. The closest thing
to molecular encoded learned behaviors I've ever read about was a study
that showed that certain sensory stimuli could cause certain genes to be
switched on and off in birds - but it's a huge leap from there to
biomolecular memory storage.

Anybody out there have more information on this?

Glenn G.

- -----------------------Glenn Grant-----------------------  
                      <pawn@cam.org>
Web: <http://helios.physics.utoronto.ca:8080/ggrant.html>
"The courts may not work anymore, but so long as everyone
      is videotaping everyone else, we'll be okay."
                    -- Marge Simpson

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1104
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Tuesday, March 25 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1105



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Gravitics
Work-live
Re: The long and winding road! (work there - live here)
LAG? (was Re: Friendly Fire)
Re: Send in the Clones!
Re: Templars
Re: genetic knowledge
Re: Send in the Clones!
Re: Misjump mishaps
Re: Meson question
Re: Some world generation oddities... and OFFICIAL QUESTION
Re: Black Globes and J-space
Re: Ideas for new toys
Re: Meson question
Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)
Spinward Marches in M0?
WEB site
Re: Templars
The True History of Hiver manipulations of the K'kree
Re: The True History of Hiver manipulations of the K'kree
Re: Meson question
Re: The True History of Hiver manipulations of the K'kree

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 08:05:04 -0600 (CST)
From: "Peter  H. Brenton" <pete@cummings.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Gravitics

On Mon, 24 Mar 1997, Richard Hough wrote:

> Peter  H. Brenton wrote:
> 
> >Basically, gravitic technology centers around making an "immunity zone"
> >where gravity is nullified
> [snip]
> 
> Why not then make an "immunity zone" around a jump drive so you can jump
> cargo and passengers directly from planet to planet and not bother with all
> this space travel stuff?

I don't think you read very carefully.  The problem causing misjumps is
the area *around* the ship, not the area the ship itself occupies.  So the
explanation goes like this; since you cannot nullify the effects of
gravity in an area the size of a small gas giant, you cannot use this
device to make jumping from the surface safe.  

> 
> >or (in the case of inertial compensators and
> >grav floor plates) creating a small scale distortion by emitting 'fake
> >gravitons' in a limited area.
> [snip]
> 
> Why not make this distortion in front of the ship so the ship constantly
> 'falls' forward, with no need for reaction mass? Ta daa, Newton's laws
> repealed!
> 

The distortion can only be placed directly above the gravitic device, and
has a certain mass limitation such that in order to power the thing
properly would require more power than a power plant it could affect could
produce.

did that make sense?

> Seriously, the hard part in explaining Traveller technology rationally is
> not coming up with technobabble describing what happens, it's preventing
> this technobabble from predicting all kinds of things which are NOT
> Traveller technology.
> 

Something I've been doing for a long time, sometimes well, sometimes not.
Fortunately I've usually been able to sling the technobabble better or as
good as the players I've played with.  or they've been nice to me:)

Pete

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 10:31:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Work-live

   Hi.

> From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@CompuServe.COM>

> Now expand this to the 57th century, where interface 
> transport is dirt cheap, either by grav vehicles or 
> beanstalks. Maybe not every day, but I can see people 
> commuting to orbit to work each week and coming home - to 
> the ground - at the weekend. 

   Sounds good, but I suspect that they would commute to orbit every
   day.  The commute in a 6g shuttle wouldn't take more than 15 minutes;
   space-dock workers could have a shorter commute than you do!

   -Rob, whose 5-mile commute takes him 40 minutes on foot and by bus.

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 07:52:38 -0800
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: The long and winding road! (work there - live here)

At 10:20 PM 3/24/97 -0600, Eris Reddoch wrote:
>On 03/24/97 at 04:03 PM,  Hugh Foster <100326.446@CompuServe.COM> said:
>
>> As time has progressed, however, we have people commuting further and 
>> further to their places of work - in large part because 
>> living nearer is becoming either prohibitivelty expensive 
>> or dangerous or unpleasant. 
>
>Hugh, this is particularly true in the US. 

I'm not sure where you are, but prehaps you've heard the saying?  "The
difference between the US and the UK is that in the US 100 years is a long
time, while in the UK 100 miles is a long way." :-)


- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 12:51:01 -0500
From: James Garriss <jpg@langley.mitre.org>
Subject: LAG? (was Re: Friendly Fire)

At 12:29 PM 3/25/97 PST, you wrote:
>
>
>Pierre-Louis Constantin <Pierre-Louis.Constantin@DMI.USherb.CA> did the   
>Darrian 'live long and prosper' wave and asked:
>   
>
>>         I'd just like to know if any of you have rules to handle
>> gunfire misses in a cluster of friends and foe...  How do you decide
>> if a friend was hit instead of the ennemy?
>
>Unless the weapon is a shotgun or LAG, if the shot misses the intended   
>target I just have the player roll the to-hit roll again once for each   
>character around the target (closest character outwards) until the shot   
>hits someone or we run out of characters to roll for.
>
>Some of my friends apply minuses to the roll, increasing the minuses the   
>further they get from the aiming point.
>
>Of course, if the weapon is a shotgun or a LAG the damage gets shared out   
>amongst everyone in the vicinity (including the intended target). Let   
>no-one say I'm not generous! ;-)

Why do you include the LAG in with a shotgun?


 James Garriss                             
 System Engineer, MITRE               
 jpg@langley.mitre.org              
 http://www.cs.odu.edu/~garriss      

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 18:49:27 MET
From: "Volker A. Greimann" <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
Subject: Re: Send in the Clones!

- -> So all this talk on cloning (both here in in society in general) got me 
- -> thinking...Strephon's "double" (that may not have been a double...that 
- -> may have been the original--you get what I mean) that came forward after 
- -> the start of the Rebellion: Was he a clone, a robot/android or a person 
- -> altered by plastic surgery (see Akira Kurosawa's brilliant film Kagemusha 
- -> for a good backdrop to this aspect...).
I thought that GDW made it clear, that the name of "the REAL 
Strephon" really fitted the man! I.e., he was the man! 

My Sources: Arrival Vengeance, and to a lesser extent, Survival 
Margin! 
- -> The reason for asking: In working out possible plot threads for my 
- -> Spinward Marches Campaign, I was wondering about a "Prince and the 
- -> Pauper" kind of scenario where the PC's book a passenger who looks 
- -> awfully darn familiar!
Sounds interestin, please post more as your work progresses!

- -> (Knight of the Third Imperium--Strephon Himself did it to me!)
Which one????Ad Astra,

V.A.G.       
- ------  Volker A. Greimann, also known as: Grei5001@uni-trier.de  ----
- -- Am Weidengraben 86,C6 - 54296 Trier - Germany - T+F: +49651148846 -
- ---- Student of Law, Gamer, Illuminatus Primus, Slayer of Windows95 --
- -----  "Don't hold me up: I am just barely ahead of insanity!!!" -----

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 10:03:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Templars

> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 21:28:47 -0800
> From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
> 
> At 09:56 PM 3/24/97 -0500, Bob wrote:
> >Ah yes... now we are getting to the real reasons for:
> >Why the Third Imperium never expanded past the Spiward Marches!
> >Why the Third Imperium has the highest tech!
> >The "real" reasons the Zhodani were always attacking! (none of this
> >silly stuff about "slowing the 3I down...")
> >
> >Its all getting very clear now, ... (did they find something?...)

And for that matter, why did the 3I spend so very much effort holding Five
Sisters/SM?  It's beyond a Sword Worlds chokepoint, *past* unincorporated
District 268 (in the CT era), strategically all but useless...but Andor
and Candory, the purported Droyne homeworlds, are smack dab in the middle
of it.  And right next door are those Darrians with their relic TL17 toys.
The plot thickens.  Was the push toward the Marches a race to Five
Sisters?  Was the Darrien Star Trigger disaster a piece of sabotage by
Grandfather...or someone else?  Why aren't the Zhos more interested in
pushing rimward?  The truth is out there...

> You want to get real paranoid?  What if this has something to do with why
> the FIRST Imperium never expanded in Corridor, and why the Zhodani stopped
> where they did.  What do the Darriens know, being the closest race to the
> Ancient's homeworld(s).

Exactly.  Suddenly the Darrians become the key to it all...they're
starting to take on a tinge of Asimov's Foundation, small, weak...but
maybe running everything in SM and Corridor and perhaps beyond, subtly,
from behind the scenes.  Of course, their own puppet masters may well be
just one subsector to trailing...

Imagine if the Darrians really prop up the Sword Worlds as a buffer
against too much Imperial and Zhodani prying.  Now *there* is a conspiracy
theory!

> What was the real cause of the Psionic Supressions... were the Institutes on
> the verge of something?  Something the secret masters weren't ready to allow.

Oh, undoubtedly.  I would guess that they were on the verge of keying in
on Grandfather's interstellar data grid, still perhaps in use by Droyne
and other operatives.  Something had to be done to smack 'em down.

> A conspiracy extending back over 5000 years.. now who could be behind this?
> 
> (Hint: He's scaly, has wings, is real smart, and has a real dysfunctional
> family...)
> 
> As for the Hivers.. Perhaps the reason Hivers and Solomani never really
> interacted was a shadow war between the Templars and the Hiver Manipulators.

Oh, *shit*.

Hivers: Five-fold symmetric, shadowy manipulators, creators of countless
tiny spawn.
Great Old Ones: Ditto.

Droyne: Hunched, winged, ancient beyond calculation, working secretly to
bring about unknown ends.
Cthulhu: Ditto.

Perhaps the Necronomicon preserves a racial memory of the great conflict
in which Grandfather and his minions kicked a colony of Hivers off ancient
Earth, replacing their program of manipulation with his own?  How long
have the Hivers been spacefarers, anyway?  And can we trust the official
answer to this question?

> I like where this is going...

Tell me about it!  The Outer God Yadroskay, anyone?  (corrupted over
countless generations into Yog-Sothoth, of course.)

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 10:03:00 -0800
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: genetic knowledge

At 06:30 AM 3/25/97 -0500, Glenn Grant wrote:
>>Some interesting work along these lines was done in early 1980s, and could
>>be extended for a Traveller campaign. There's good evidence that activity
>>in a neuron is coded in proteins held in the Golgi complex inside the cell
>>[snip]  Whether these proteins code for
>>specific experience or something else isn't known, but as I recall
>>experiments with fairly simple animals (planaria and aplysia) show some
>>knowledge transfer from just these proteins. 
>
>Hold it. If you're referring to the planaria experiments from the '60's
>(which lead Larry Niven to speculate about "RNA Injection Learning" in his
>Tales of Known Space), you should know they were shown to be quite bogus. 

The planaria studies were flawed.  Others have been done with aplysia
(sea-hares, considerably more complex with brains having ~10,000 neurons --
still a walk in the park compared to mammalian brains) and mantle-opening
behavior that were not, I believe, similarly flawed.  Ugh, it's been
_years_ since I looked at this stuff; I think my old Kandel & Schwartz
(Principles of Neural Science?) talks about this.  

I don't know that there is any strong evidence for the molecular memory
hypotheses.  CNS neurons do have many more Golgi complexes than do other
cells; they manufacture and store proteins like crazy.  There's also
excellent evidence that microtubules in the axons of nerve cells actively
transport specific proteins depending on the activity of the cell.  Now,
whether this manufacture, storage, and transport is indicative of some sort
of memory mechanism or is merely the result of cellular wear-and-tear is
not at all clear (to say the least).  In the scope of a TL15+ Traveller
game though, I think you _could_ posit some local molecular memory storage
within each cell and the scanning technique I described earlier.  The
proteins (every bit as informationally dense, more durable, and often more
compact than the DNA that codes for them, btw) are essentially a sort of
synaptic map for each neuron: so, given a similar brain, semi-magically
re-creating the proteins in each cell (again, on an aggregate probabilistic
basis; you're not going to get every neuron right!) could cause the CNS
neurons to create very similar synapic mappings, thus recreating very
similar memories and behavior patterns.

Well, that's probably more goopy neuroscience stuff than most folks here
wanted to know. :)

- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 11:29:09 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Send in the Clones!

On Tue, 25 Mar 1997 FKiesche@concentric.net wrote:

> Greetings:
> 
> So all this talk on cloning (both here in in society in general) got me 
> thinking...Strephon's "double" (that may not have been a double...that 
> may have been the original--you get what I mean) that came forward after 
> the start of the Rebellion: Was he a clone, a robot/android or a person 
> altered by plastic surgery (see Akira Kurosawa's brilliant film Kagemusha 
> for a good backdrop to this aspect...).

     Good question...this was never clearly elucidated, at least in the
sources I have (I'm missing the 'Arrival Vengeance' adventure which
apparently has some things about what Strephon was doing out there so far
from core, just what the heck Longbow was, and why they were doing it, and
maybe some stuff about his 'doubles')

     Reading between the lines in survival margin (where ALL the
good info is, in that book), though, I would tend to think that they were
clones, not robots or surgically altered doubles. Several mentions are
made throughout Traveller canon about cloning humans being highly illegal,
as well as highly intelligent robots and/or AI's.  That the Strephon that
appeared after the assasination being the 'real' one is made pretty clear,
imo by the excerpts from his writings in SM.

     There's a Robert Heinlein novel about an actor taking over for
another politician, I think it's called Double Star.  For a humorous look
at this sort of thing, check out the movie 'Moon over Parador'; Richard
Dreyfuss takes over for some bananna republic 'Presidente for Life' and
wreaks havok with the country.

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:47:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Dedly@aol.com
Subject: Re: Misjump mishaps

Blowing the ship up on a misjump isn't alot of fun to me. I try to come up
with misjump scenarios when the guys really screw up. <evil laughter> It's
much more fun to torture them than to let them die in peace. >=) </evil
laughter>

An idea I finally got to explore recently was the use of H.P. Lovecraft
critters (not the Major players just some minor servants). <Major
Bullshittium>The ship apparently damaged the fabric of the jumpspacetime
continuum and permitted several of these creatures to cross over into our
Universe to do some exploration. </Major Bullshittium>

It was great. The pcs were all paranoid. They thought that they were
hallucinating or under some psionic influence. The critters left them alone
(for now) but the pcs freaked and didn't know what to do upon returning to
"Normal space." So, now I've got an adventure thread I can return to at a
later date.

\_/
DED

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 11:08:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Meson question

> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 14:27:03 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
> 
> > So to reach a specified range with a Meson gun you just have to calculate
> > the velocity of the particle (which has to be VERY VERY precise indeed)
> 
>    Actually, you don't need to be so very precise.  You accelerate the
>    meson until its lifetime becomes long enough to travel to the target
>    with ease.  Once striking the target, the meson decelerates to
>    non-relativistic speeds, where its lifetime reduces to normal (which
>    is less than 30 nanoseconds, depending on the type of meson).  It
>    thus decays almost instantly once it has stopped inside the target. 
>    This is how meson "guns" work in reality, where they are used for
>    brain surgery.

Nope, this trick only works for charged mesons.  The whole beauty of
Traveller's neutral-meson guns is that they don't interact *at all* (well,
a vanishingly small amount, really) until the decay happens.  If passing
into solid matter slowed the mesons (as is the case with charged ones),
then armor would be a defense against meson guns.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:19:37 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: Some world generation oddities... and OFFICIAL QUESTION

On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, Carlos Alos-Ferrer wrote:

>         So, OFFICIAL QUESTION(s): Is the world generation going to be
> reworked in the Deluxe Edition? Are the type B starport description and the
> rule for creating hydrosphere typos?

As part of our work on Pocket Empires, it was necessary for us to know 
the answer to these questions, too.  Are A and B starports the same now?  
What about the high atmosphere types?  The high government types?  What 
happened to Standard, Tainted atmospheres?

Tim Brown told me that T4 deluxe would include the right info on all 
these things - i.e., A and B are not the same, Standard, Tainted 
atmospheres will be there, etc.

Chalk it all up to errata, in other words.

At least, that's what Tim said.  Hopefully that is what Marc has planned 
as well.


- -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: Tue, 25 Mar 97 19:44 GMT0
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Black Globes and J-space

In-Reply-To: <97Mar21.084710est.18821-1@charon.theiia.org>

<< The main point involved using the Black Globe to shield the ship from a 
planet's gravity well, he argued that gravity is just another form of 
energy, so at 10-100 diams it could suck gravitons and power the j-grid and 
jump, and the ship would be safe from the effects of the gravity well.

I am confused, I like this idea, and yet game ballance tells me to say the 
gravitons are so many that it would overload the caps and make ship go boom, 
now a white globe might be able to pull this off :) >>

The rules mention no problem with using a BG in a gravity well - which is 
probably where they'd be used most often - therefore there isn't one.

(There *are* problems with BGs and gravity, but I try not to think about 
them).

    ---------=========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: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 14:56:53 -0500
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Ideas for new toys

>>So we make the detonator part of the strip inert until a small electic
>>charge or 
>>some such is ran through it....Say, slap the tape down and then press the 3I's
>>equivalent of a 9-volt battery against it.
>
>No, SEPERATE.  As in not in contact with each other until it is time to go
>boom.  The reason for this is to insure that there is no way for an
>accidental detonation.
>
>In my expereince, every care is taken to keep the detonator and explosive as
>far as possible from each other until it is time for the demolition.  then,
>and only then, are the two mated.

Issue of semantics, as I see it. Whether the actual detonator is seperate,
or the 
substance that must be in
physical contact with the detonator for it to be primed is kept seperate, no
difference.
If it makes you feel better, just call the "detonator strip" we keep
referring to "C4/TNT/
whatever" and call the little "9-volt" the "blasting cap/fuse/whatever". I
see no difference
between having a seperate detonator, and having a built-in detonator that
must be
"primed" by a seperate object brought into physical (if brief) contact.
Especially when
the person carrying it is totin' a FGMP, for crissakes. <g> 

And has probably disabled the safety, as well <g>

**********************************************************
  Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
 CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:22:00 -0700 (MST)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Meson question

 
> Nope, this trick only works for charged mesons.  The whole beauty of
> Traveller's neutral-meson guns is that they don't interact *at all* (well,
> a vanishingly small amount, really) until the decay happens.  If passing
> into solid matter slowed the mesons (as is the case with charged ones),
> then armor would be a defense against meson guns.

Actually, he's right.  Pions still interact far more than traveller
gives them credit for.  In order to have them penetrate even a meter
of matter we'd have to invoke some kind of control over them aside
from accelerating them to reletivistic velocities.  Luckily by meson
gun TLs we have strong and weak force control to use as magic for
this.

- -Merrick

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 19:59:58 +0000
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)

David Elrick wrote:

<<More interestingly, why were the Darrians never able to build another
working Star Trigger (having apparently built one and set it off)?

What are the Darrians *really* hiding about the Star Trigger?>>

Try the Regency Sourcebook for TNE if you want an answer to this one...

    -Dom Mooney- dom@cybergoths.u-net.com
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
"But everything is still the same; passing the time, passing the blame.
We carry on in the same old way, we'll find out we left it too late one day,
 to say what we meant to say." - Marillion
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 20:39:27 +0000
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Spinward Marches in M0?

A question for all of you that bought FS -are there any maps of Corridor,
and the Domain of Deneb in the book? Might be easier on the list if you
reply directly to me.... Thanks in advance...

    -Dom Mooney- dom@cybergoths.u-net.com
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
"But everything is still the same; passing the time, passing the blame.
We carry on in the same old way, we'll find out we left it too late one day,
 to say what we meant to say." - Marillion
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 15:57:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Kagehira@aol.com
Subject: WEB site

An interesting web site to look at for some might be:

HTTP://www.starshield.com

     It's a site being developed for a new SF series/RPG/MARs mission.

     That's all the advertising I'd give them right now.

Bryan Borich

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:43:31 -0800
From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Re: Templars

>From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
>
>Ah yes... now we are getting to the real reasons for:[deletion]
>
>Or is it just a Hiver plot?

I suspect that the Templars themselves were a Hiver manipulation.  

- --Glenn

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:50:53 -0800
From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <sudet@well.com>
Subject: The True History of Hiver manipulations of the K'kree

>From: "K.C. Komosky" <umkomosk@cc.umanitoba.ca>
>
>(a transcript of a speech by M. Seldon to the Manipulations Club of Guaran,
>date: 032-1105)

[Much Hiver applause:  hand-things waving and swirling.]

- --Glenn

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 20:32:22 +1100 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: The True History of Hiver manipulations of the K'kree

I never had the Hiver Alien Module, so what is this manipulation exactly?
I have a rudimentry knowledge of the hive and its seems there quite
peacefull, is this manipulation psionic?

thanks


Peace,

michl

electric RAIN                      http://www.electric-rain.net/


More sweat in training, less blood in war.
Roman Axiom

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 17:24:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Meson question

   Hi.

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

>>    Actually, you don't need to be so very precise.  You accelerate the
>>    meson until its lifetime becomes long enough to travel to the target
>>    with ease.  Once striking the target, the meson decelerates to
>>    non-relativistic speeds, where its lifetime reduces to normal (which
>>    is less than 30 nanoseconds, depending on the type of meson).  It
>>    thus decays almost instantly once it has stopped inside the target. 
>>    This is how meson "guns" work in reality, where they are used for
>>    brain surgery.

> Nope, this trick only works for charged mesons.  The whole beauty of
> Traveller's neutral-meson guns is that they don't interact *at all* (well,
> a vanishingly small amount, really) until the decay happens.  If passing
> into solid matter slowed the mesons (as is the case with charged ones),
> then armor would be a defense against meson guns.

   Well, firing a heavy, decaying particle into a ship is like firing an
   armor-piercing, exploding bullet at a vehicle.  Of course armor
   affects charged mesons, but not as much as it affects light particles
   (electron accelerators) or slow particles (heavy ion accelerators,
   like the AHL has) or stable particles (like plasma guns) or, most
   particularly, neutral bosons (like lasers and neutral meson
   accelerators).

   Neutral mesons will interact with matter /more/ readily than charged
   mesons, because charged mesons are stable with respect to
   electromagnetic fields, while neutral mesons are not.  In fact, early
   meson researchers used to call many neutrals "heavy photons" because
   of their propensity for electromagnetic interactions.  To keep a
   neutral from interacting with matter, you'd have to damp the
   electromagnetic fields in the matter.  Since a definition of matter
   is "electrons and nuclei interacting with each other via
   electromagnetism", this is a pretty tall order.  If you could damp
   electromagnetism in your opponant's armor, you would have a
   devastating weapon without needing "no stinkin' mesons!"

   Neutral mesons have extraordinarily short lifetimes, again due to
   their succeptability to electromagnetic decay. A neutral meson gun
   will need to accelerate its particles to about 2 million times the
   energy of a charged meson gun to get the same range.  This is a
   lesser objection, since even the lightest charged mesons will need a
   ridiculously high energy to travel for ship-combat distances (but
   neutral mesons will need two million times the aforementioned
   ridiculous energy).  On the other hand, if you believe that Trav
   engineers can control the Weak Nuclear Force, then they could make
   /charged/ mesons as stable as they please, but /neutral/ mesons would
   still decay via the Electromagnetic Force.

   Without some sort of magic, a neutral meson accelerator will be
   nothing more than a /very/ short wavelength laser-like weapon. IMHO,
   the charged meson is a better canditate for an armor piercing weapon.

   Of course, if you like magic guns, there's no reason not to have them
   in a game!  This has been just another unsolicited physics lesson
   from...

   -Rob, High Guard fiend, and meson physicist. 8^)

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 16:49:40 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: The True History of Hiver manipulations of the K'kree

No...think Larry Niven's Puppeteer's, or Issac Asimov's Foundation
series...the Hivers are masters of psychohistory and mass marketing, with
a long hisory of meddling with other races until they are no longer a
threat to the Hivers. Often this does not mean wiping them out, or
evenmessing with them too much...sometimes it could be a simple as
ensuring one leader comes to power over another.

     They dislike direct confrontation, and will opt for the sneaky
route every time.

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs


On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Solomani wrote:

> 
> I never had the Hiver Alien Module, so what is this manipulation exactly?
> I have a rudimentry knowledge of the hive and its seems there quite
> peacefull, is this manipulation psionic?
> 
> thanks
> 
> 
> Peace,
> 
> michl
> 
> electric RAIN                         http://www.electric-rain.net/
> 
> 
> More sweat in training, less blood in war.
> Roman Axiom
> 
> 
> 

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1105
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Wednesday, March 26 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1106



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: The Stuff of Legends...
Re:gnetic knowledge
Re: Air superority
Whats in a name?
beyond the rim?
Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)
Re: Cloning
Re: Shields no more, Ewock bashing
Re: Cloning
Re: Subject: Re: Templars
Re: Cloning
RE:Rabbit Hunting
Re: Rabbit Hunting
TRAVELLER ITEMS for AUCTION
RE: TRAVELLER AUCTION
RE: The True History of Hiver manipulations of the K'kree
Orbital reentry
The K'Kree
RE: The True History of Hiver manipulations of the K'kree
Re: Spinward Marches Campaign: Maps
Wepons

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 22:13:48 +1100 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: The Stuff of Legends...

On Mon, 24 Mar 1997, James Lindsay wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Mar 97 21:21:12 -0400, you wrote:
> 
> > I'm also trying to find the name of the corporation
> > that Ripley worked for in Alien, etc.
> 
> Weyland-Yutani.
> 
> 

Dont forget Tyrell Corporation.



michl

electric RAIN                      http://www.electric-rain.net/


               Pain is temporary
                Glory is forever

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 19:12:49 -0500 (EST)
From: pierre-louis constantin <Pierre-Louis.Constantin@DMI.USherb.CA>
Subject: Re:gnetic knowledge

HI again,
 
     I don't have references offhand... I'm pretty sure I read
something about protein-encoded knowledge in a fairly recent issue of
The Economist though.  I'll mail more complete refs. when I find
them. :)
 
David elrick's friendly fire rule:
Wouldn't it make more sense to somehow invert the skill roll to MISS
your friends?  Because otherwise, if you miss your target, the more
skilled you are the more likely you are to kill your own friends. :)


- -- 
Pierre-Louis Constantin, ift. a.   "He whose name was writ in E-mail."
(: "I hate fanatics with a passion; all extremists should be shot." :)
         How's my surfing? http://www.dmi.usherb.ca/~constanp/

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 16:14:20 -0800
From: Edward Fok <efok@ni.net>
Subject: Re: Air superority

At 09:52 3/25/97 -0500, Traveller-digest wrote:
>Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:40:18 +0100
>From: Nicolas LEJEUNE <nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr>
>Subject: Air superiority
>
>I was wondering something about SL + Contra grav vs AF dogfight
>
>The question is which configuration would have the best manoeuvrability and
>by consequence the air superiority (assuming that the weapons are quite the
>same type of course)
>
>I'm detailing a little bit what i mean.
>
>A SL+CG (without CG it would fly like an iron...) move in athmosphere as it
>would do in space, assuming it uses a part of it's propulsion to maintain
>speed because of the surrounded air.=20
>It' acceleration is only given by it's propulsors. So if the ship/raft has
>a G-rating of 3 he can only give a 3G burst in one direction.=20

Actually, it'll only have 2 G's as one G is required to keep it in the air
at a constant altitude.  (Actually, the amount required to maintain altitude
will equal to the local surface gravity value.)

>Now for a AF plane. A simple 1G plane can use it's portance (I hope that's
>the correct translation) to give a bigger acceleration than 1G in another
>direction. I think (but I'm not sure of the numbers _at all_) that a
>fighter like the F16 can handle from 6 to 9G depending of the mass it
>carries. Regarding it's speed it might not have a thrust higher than 1G.=20

Not quite.

The F-16 can produce up to 9g of instantaneous acceleration due to it's
speed and turning radius.  The acceleration often refered to is the conbined
effect of gravity and centriputal acceleration of the aircraft.  It is not a
function of the mass of the aircraft.  However the mass of the aircraft do
have an effect of the energy disspation rate of the aircraft (more on this
later.)


>The AF configuration seems to be more efficient in dogfight maneuvers. More
>than that, the SL+CG ship have to turn himself to provide thrust in one
>direction. Although not stated in FFS, we can assume that the propulsor can
>be oriented from +/-10=B0 to help manoeuvers, This ship wouldn't have a high
>dexterity.=20
>That's remembers me the old Astero=EFds video game, where you had a ship
>(actually just a triangle) which provides thrust in only one direction and
>can turn on himself. It was very hard to manoever and usually the course
>was finishing in a rock (the other players a very glad that I'm not the
>pilot of our starship :-)).=20

That is actually a fair model of newtonian movement.  This is what can be
expected from a space ship to ship combat scenario where both ships have the
same starting vector.  In an atmosphere you'll be constantly decelerating if
you do not maintain thrust in the direction you're travelling, either
linearly or radially (i.e. spinning).

>So there are two quesitons :
>
>1- What is your point of view on the air superiority of the AF
>configuration on the SL+CG?

Both are just as good if designed properly.

>2- Would the AF+CG have a great advantage in manoevrability on standard AF
>configuration?

Maybe.

If all else were keep the same (weight, endurance, maintance, cost, warload,
etc) the AF+CG will not have to fight gravity.  If real fighters do not have
to use any of the lift from their wings to keep the aircraft in the air,
then they can maintain a 90 degree bank angle all day long in a dogfight.
Today, if an aircraft did this, it'll stall and crash if it's kinetic energy
fell too low.

If the CG model you're using is actually a thrust medium, then there are
other maneuvering advantages that can be exploited in a close in fight.

>P.S. All this thinking is build around a "regular propulsor" as Helpar or
>propellors which provide thrust in only one direction. I don't know if
>there is a orientable thuster agent (even in T4) which would reduces
>partially the problem of spinning of the ship (thuster plates?)=20

Control that can reduce spin can be found on Hovercraft or Air Cushioned
Vehicles.  A rudder is used to control the spin/drift before it gets out of
control if you're using a "regular propulsor."  If you're using the
"thruster plate," you can always mount small TP's around the vehicle in
arrangement similar to what's used on spacecrafts.  Then you just fire them
as need to correct course deviation.

Cheers!
Ed Fok
Edward Fok               phone: 213-580-5387
SMART CORRIDOR - LADOT        fax:   213-580-5403

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 23:11:25 +1100 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Whats in a name?

Where do the names 'Solomani', 'Vilani' and 'Zhodani' come from?

I remember (vaguely) reading once (could have been anywhere from a
Classic traveller module to a magazine) that the term Solomani comes from
the french for "Men Of Sol" and thats what the other major human races
names are derived from - "Men of Vland" and "Men of Zhodane".

The OF could also be 'From', not quite sure.

Peace,

michl

electric RAIN                      http://www.electric-rain.net/


For death would offer nothing. On his rigid firm demand that Life
must give up all.
The Singer

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 23:14:48 +1100 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: beyond the rim?

Whats beyond the outer empire?  For instance whats beyond the furthest
reaches of the hiver federation? or Solomani Confederation?  or is this
just a blank slate?

I have this picture that as the Imperium had to deal with the
Solomani/Zhodani/Hiver/Aslan/Vargr and K'kree on there borders, that each
of these "periphery" races have to deal with a similiar situation, except
that there races the Imperials havnt heard of or seen.


Peace,

michl

electric RAIN                      http://www.electric-rain.net/


For death would offer nothing. On his rigid firm demand that Life
must give up all.
The Singer

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 17:21:19 -0800
From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)

>From: David Elrick <David.Elrick@ps.co.uk>
>
>More interestingly, why were the Darrians never able to build another
>working Star Trigger (having apparently built one and set it off)?
>
>What are the Darrians *really* hiding about the Star Trigger?

Alien Realms suggests that they didn't really understand what happened with the first 
Star Trigger, hence were unable to duplicate it.

- --Glenn

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 20:32:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Re: Cloning

In a message dated 97-03-24 14:45:39 EST, Anders writes:

>Except that they'll choose the same color of shirts/tie, the same name for
>wife and like the same brands of cigarettes. These findings although hard
>to believe have been found statistically significant on identical twins
>separated at birth. Psychologists are scratching their heads over this one
>and could perhaps lead to interesting adventures.
Males also pee toward the same side of the toilet bowl, if you can believe
sombody took the time to check this out.
dsf

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 20:32:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Re: Shields no more, Ewock bashing

>No, but he did almost come out with his own line of tobacco products with
>the catchy slogan "Chewbacca does!" 

Proof positive that Mike Sellers is a disturbed man....
dsf

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 20:32:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Re: Cloning

In a message dated 97-03-24 08:03:18 EST,the Shadow writes:

>Now *if* certain traits can be *proven* to have a genetic basis, then
>there'd be some interest in clones. And a lot more in gene therapy to
>add the traits to one's children.
 How about a wealthy Psionic family that doesn't want to risk losing their
power by diluting the Psi gene with common stock? Extensive gene therapy
could combine 'talents' to create a more powerful heir. Weird, but possible.
dsf

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 20:46:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Templars

In a message dated 97-03-25 03:17:24 EST, the congenitally strange D. Berry
writes:

>A conspiracy extending back over 5000 years.. now who could be behind this?
>
>(Hint: He's scaly, has wings, is real smart, and has a real dysfunctional
>family...)
David Letterman?
dsf

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 20:47:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Re: Cloning

>A quick apology for the crappy set-up of that last message.  I must be
>tired.  I forgot that e-mail isn't a word processor!!!  :-)  Again, I'm
>sorry.
Reminded me of an article in "wired"
dsf

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 18:32:33 -0800 (PST)
From: jwbrewer@ucsd.edu (James W Brewer)
Subject: RE:Rabbit Hunting

In the last week of marksmanship training during my Basic Training at Fort
Leonard Wood, Mo. a deer ran across the range.  Nearly every one in the
company opened fire on it.  However, it was a US ARMY DEER!!!, and they
fined everyone for shooting it.  (The bullet holes in the range control
tower, from the trainee in another company that went crazy, were much scarier.)

                     James W. Brewer
                     Univ. of Calif. at San Diego

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:41:05 -0500
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: Rabbit Hunting

From: David John Yeardly <djy@st-andrews.ac.uk>
>>>>
In all my time on a millitary range we never fired after the cease fire 
command was given or on poor defensles bunnies - although it has to be 
said that the fine for a ND ( negligent discharge ) probrerbl put us off 
as it is currently running at 600 pounds / round ( yes thats pounds 
stirling approx $1000)
<<<<

I must agree. It must be that fine US Army training ;-> that allows such
UN-disciplined firing. 

Bob
USMC - Once a Marine, Always a Marine!

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 21:39:28 -0600
From: Paul Walker <tiger@goldinc.com>
Subject: TRAVELLER ITEMS for AUCTION

That's right, here is the chance you've been waiting for.  Need a copy of
Starship Operator's Manual, or Vilani and Vargr?  Both are available in the
auction.  Everything MUST go.  Here's the rules:

1.  All prices are considered to include postage to the continental USA.
Foreign orders add $3.00 for surface postage and more for Priority.

2.  Nothing will be shipped until I get a check.  Sorry, but I've been a
sucker one to many times already in this life.

3.  Bids for all items will be posted twice weekly.

4.  After the final posting, any additional bids will be directly hashed out
by me between all remaining bidders.

5.  All bids MUST be in whole dollar increments, and payment must be in US
Dollars.

6.  SPECIAL BONUS!!! The Buyer with the highest total price will get free
50Cr of Imperial Currency imprinted with Strephon's empression. (In 10Cr slips).

7.  Only bid if you intend to buy.

OK, now on to the items for sale:


CLASSIC TRAVELLER

Book 6: Scouts     GDW 1983     Mid Bid: $5.00
Bid:

Adv 2:  Research Station Gamma     GDW 1980     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:

Adv 3:  Twilight's Peak     GDW 1980     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:

Fifty Starbases     Judges Guild 1981     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:


MEGATRAVELLER

Boxed Set (with 9-1-90 errata)     GDW 1987     Min Bid: $15.00
    Includes:  Players' Manual; Referee's Manual; Imperial
                   Encyclopedia; and Spinward Marches Map
Bid:

Rebellion Sourcebook     GDW 1988     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:

Referee's Companion     GDW 1988     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:

Hard Times     GDW 1991     Min Bid: $8.00
Bid:

Starship Operator's Manual     DGP 1988     Min Bid: $12.00
Bid:

Vilani & Vargr     DGP 1990     Min Bid: $15.00
Bid:

MegaTraveller Journal #4     DGP 1993     Min Bid: $5.00
     (Lords of Thunder, K'kree Issue)
Bid:

Arrival Vengeance     GDW 1992     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:


TRAVELLER: THE NEW ERA

Survival Margin     GDW 1993     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:

Main Rulebook (Mark 1, Mod 1, Dec 93)     GDW 1993     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:

Brilliant Lances     GDW 1993     Min Bid: $10.00
Bid:

Fire, Fusion, & Steel (Mk 1, Mod 1, Jan 94)     GDW 1993     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:

Smash & Grab     GDW 1994     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:

Referee's Screen (W/ Lady Elise)     GDW 1994     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:

Battle Rider     GDW 1993     Min Bid: $10.00
Bid:

Path of Tears     GDW 1993(?)     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:

Reformation Coalition Equipment Guide    GDW 1994     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:

World Tamer's Handbook     GDW 1994    Min Bid: $10.00
Bid:

Vampire Fleets     GDW 1995     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:

Striker II      GDW 1994    Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:

Regency Sourcebook     GDW 1995     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:

Star Vikings     GDW 1994     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:

Hiver & Ithklur     GDW 1995     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:

Regency Combat Vehicle Guide     GDW 1995     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:

The Guilded Lilly     GDW 1995     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:


MARK MILLER'S TRAVELLER

Hardbound Rulebook (Signed)     Imperium Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:

Starships     Imperium Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:

Central Supply Catalog     Imperuim Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:

Aliens Archive     Imperium Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:

Mileau 0     Imperium Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:

First Survey     Imperium Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:

JTAS 25     Imperium Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:




Paul {tiger}
tiger@goldinc.com
http://www.goldinc.com/~tiger

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 21:41:49 -0600
From: Paul Walker <tiger@goldinc.com>
Subject: RE: TRAVELLER AUCTION

OOPS!!!  I forgot to mention the final auction date.

The auction will officially be going on thru the end of April at which time
I will determine if there are any remaining issues to be resolved and send
the results to the bidders.

Paul {tiger}
tiger@goldinc.com
http://www.goldinc.com/~tiger

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 22:09:49 -0600
From: "K.C. Komosky" <umkomosk@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Subject: RE: The True History of Hiver manipulations of the K'kree

>I never had the Hiver Alien Module, so what is this manipulation exactly?
>I have a rudimentry knowledge of the hive and its seems there quite
>peacefull, is this manipulation psionic?

     Ahh, you poor, ignorant soul. My collection of all 7 Alien Modules are 
like children to me- they are simply that useful.

     In a nutshell, manipulation is psychohistory. Dig out a copy of Asimov's 
Foundation series, and that'll give you the idea. 
Manipulation/psychohistory is the art of performing one single, solitary 
act and thereby influencing an entire society.

     Oh, despite their names, the Hivers do not live in hives, and are not at 
all what that name might imply (bringing to mind bees and other mindless 
insects). Also, the Hivers are completly, 100% non-spionic. They can 
neither learn psionics, nor be affected by psionic powers.

K.C. Komosky
umkomosk@cc.umanitoba.ca

p.s. did anyone pick up on the name of the Hiver doing the lecture?

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 15:22:11 +1100 (EST)
From: Michael Barry <mbarry@pcug.org.au>
Subject: Orbital reentry

A cry for help from the TML: 
Does anybody know what is the *minimum possible* size of a vehicle 
capable of orbital re-entry? I am thinking of the CT concept of the 
spacesuit 'reentry kit' complete with can of 'ablative foam' that allows 
a vacc suited person to survive reentry on a 7+ (+2 per level of Vacc 
suit skill). Ref for this: ? maybe the 'Marooned/Marooned Alone' double 
adventure? 
"...you decided to attempt a re-entry using the suit's foamed ablative 
re-entry package." Double Adventure 4, Marooned/Marooned Alone. 
- - but it's labelled "Fluoro-Gel Hair Mousse" NOOOOOOO! <crisping/burning 
noises>

I guess the real question is: is a "foamed ablative re-entry package" 
possible, or would you need a one-person reentry vehicle a la Apollo 
missions? And how small could such a vehicle be? 

Cheers, 
**************************************************************************
Michael Barry
mbarry@pcug.org.au               <--- checked daily
**************************************************************************

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 02:41:07 +1100 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: The K'Kree

I hate the K'Kree.  Why doesnt/didnt the Imperium declare war and decimate
these vegeterian, cabbage eating bums.

Now i have that out of my system:)

Two things ...

In my ever continuing search for Hiver/KKree pictures i have managed to
dig up a black and white Hiver shot (which is fine) - would any one else
be willing to scan a colour/bw picture of a Kkree?  Anything will do,
esepcially in colour.

Also, what happened to the two thousand stars during the new era? 

SaHua,

michl

electric RAIN                      http://www.electric-rain.net/


Shido
CRESCENTS
A new moon's silver fin ascends the dark,
As waves engulf the crescent-bladed shark.

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 03:09:30 +1100 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: RE: The True History of Hiver manipulations of the K'kree

On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, K.C. Komosky wrote:

Yes, ive read most of Asimovs work - thanks:)

And yes, i did pick up the name - the master of psychohistory himself.

Do you know that he did not invent psycho history?

Do you who did (in teh Asimove universe)?

> >I never had the Hiver Alien Module, so what is this manipulation exactly?
> >I have a rudimentry knowledge of the hive and its seems there quite
> >peacefull, is this manipulation psionic?
> 
>    Ahh, you poor, ignorant soul. My collection of all 7 Alien Modules are 
> like children to me- they are simply that useful.
> 
>    In a nutshell, manipulation is psychohistory. Dig out a copy of Asimov's 
> Foundation series, and that'll give you the idea. 
> Manipulation/psychohistory is the art of performing one single, solitary 
> act and thereby influencing an entire society.
> 
>    Oh, despite their names, the Hivers do not live in hives, and are not at 
> all what that name might imply (bringing to mind bees and other mindless 
> insects). Also, the Hivers are completly, 100% non-spionic. They can 
> neither learn psionics, nor be affected by psionic powers.
> 
> K.C. Komosky
> umkomosk@cc.umanitoba.ca
> 
> p.s. did anyone pick up on the name of the Hiver doing the lecture?
> 
> 


SaHua,

michl

electric RAIN                      http://www.electric-rain.net/


Shido
CRESCENTS
A new moon's silver fin ascends the dark,
As waves engulf the crescent-bladed shark.

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 23:58:17 -0500
From: John H Bogan Jr <jbogan@pop.pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Spinward Marches Campaign: Maps

At 09:20 PM 3/23/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Greetings All:
>
>In working on my Classic Traveller Spinward Marches campaign, I've been 
>thinking about maps. 

Some mapping ideas I've found useful:

1) A normal map, except that where a system exists, 
shade in the ENTIRE hex. It immediatly makes mains,
clusters, scatters, voids, etc. stand out, to give
the players (and ref) a better sense of the astrographic
character of a region. Works best on a large-scale (sector)
map.

2) As (1), but color-coding for tech level, or at least tech-category
(i.e. High-stellar, low-stellar, preindustrial, etc.).

3) A time-propagation map (this is more of a GM tool).
To help provide atmosphere, when my players came out of jump
and into port, I gave them an update of the latest
TNS bulletins (handwritten or retyped, so that it wouldn't
be obvious which ones were mine and which had been 
published in JTAS). Remember, "latest" didn't mean by 
calender date, but by the most recent ones to arrive at
this world. That means accounting for message travel time
from its world of origin. Since your sig quotes the Traveller 
Adventure, I'm guessing you have it -- you'll find the
propagation system I used in there.  For frequent news
systems-of-origin (e.g., Regina, Rhylanor), you can make
maps with concentric bands showing to which systems a
message has travelled in X-many weeks. For less
frequent sources you can do the same, or just fudge it
based on what you've established for the frequent sources.

4) Off-dimension maps, to remind people that space doesn't
end where the map does. Make maps on hexpaper that doesn't
follow the standard 8x10 hex/subsector, 32x40 hex/sector
grid. For my several campaigns based around the Traveller
Adventure (with different groups, naturally) I custom-made
a map that centered on Aramis subsector, but also showed
about 12 parsecs in every direction around it. This means 
all the neighboring subsectors were shown -- not just
Regina and Rhylanor, but also the nearby space in Deneb
and Gvurrdon sectors (if you don't have the info, just
roll up your own). This way there was no artificial 
map-edge border, just the broad front of the Imperial
border and the small vargr states beyond it; worlds that
looked isolated were actually part of a small cluster 
or even a main in the neighboring subsector; etc.
Even if the PCs always went where I was prodding them to go
(via charters, rumors, fudging the rolls on where their
best cargos were bound for, the ususal GM tricks),
they had much more of a sense of the space around them
and that they could go anywhere in it than with the 
standard sector/subsector maps.

Hope this helps,

JB

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 00:08:59 -0500 (EST)
From: TBSVT@aol.com
Subject: Wepons

(I got a little behind on my mail so forgive me if this came up before)


     I been seeing this thread on nastie toys and guns the go chink chink
so I get a idea.(Yes it does happen once in a great time) On a jump drive
thread a little bit ago we found out a Scouts jump drive produced a HUGE
amount of power on 10dt of LHyd. A laser with this type of power would be a
one shot wonder but what a wonder ! But what if you put a SDB with 100 tons
of fuel and this huge laser on it might be rather nastie. So what do you
think folks Comments    Declarations of my stupity    Number of a good doctor
 go-ahead for what ever flots your boat

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1106
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Wednesday, March 26 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1107



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1103
Kafers
Re: Ship to Ship Combat (Long)
Re: Sticky Bombs
Re: The K'Kree
Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1106
Question related to Plasmas
Conspiracy theories
Re: Black Globes & Jump
Re: Re; Shields
Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)
Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...
Re: The Stuff of Legends...
Re: Shields?
Re: Cloning
Re: Anti-BD grenades
Re: Black Globes & Jump
Re: Whats in a name?
Re: Question related to Plasmas
Re: Conspiracy theories
off topic

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 00:18:22 -0500
From: Bill Rutherford <worj@topgun.cinecom.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1103

I'll bite...  What's AD28A'?

...
>.-  -.. ..--- ---.. .--.-
>

- ---------------
Bill Rutherford
worj@topgun.cinecom.com

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 97 23:03:26 -0700
From: Mark <bdmahan@earthlink.net>
Subject: Kafers

                        Crawl Walk Trot      Run
Kafer                 2         9       17        34             
                                    Int  Attri(P)Attri(M)   Skill           Dam     
Hits     Armor
Kafer  Elite                2/6        9          3/8            4/7            6              28     
     0.8
Kafer  Veteran         1/5        8          2/7            3/6            5              28        
     0.8
Kafer  Experienced    1/4         7          1/6            2/5            4              28        
     0.8
Kafer  Novice            1/2      7          1/6            1/3            2              28       
     0.8

The split values are the before/after for intellegence boost.  Roll 1D6 
until one or two is rolled, then use the higher values.  Kafers are the 
reason I seperated Physical and Mental attributes.  Armor is the carapice 
on their back.   I also did conversions for the other aliens in 2300AD.

My center gives way, my right is pushed back, situation excellent, I am 
attacking. - Ferdinand Foch

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 06:45:50 GMT
From: starwolf@sn.no (StarWolf)
Subject: Re: Ship to Ship Combat (Long)

This sounded good. Do you have any more write-ups of this? Hit
location tables and so on. Are those rules usable with TNE starships?
Are the damage points to the hull applied after penetration of armor?

In my Traveller campaign I have decided to stick with TNE equipment
and rules, as I doesn't have any good feeling to the T4 starships or
general mismatch of the rules.=20

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Myhre                 |"Never worry about theory as long as the=20
http://home.sn.no/~starwolf | machinery does what it's supposed to do."
Universal Internet          |
            Number: 127772  |                  -- R. A. Heinlein

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 02:14:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Kenneth Winland <kwinland@chass.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: Sticky Bombs

     Howdy!

On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, David Elrick wrote:

> Actually they worked very well against the early panzers (marks I and II)   
> and armoured cars. However, once armour plate got thicker the only place   
> to apply the sticky bombs to any effect became the base of the tank (and   
> you find someone willing to crawl under a moving enemy tank and attach a   
> bomb!).
> 
     According to the MDI, it didn't work that well <g>.  The No. 74
grenade was originally devloped privately, and it had a host of safety
problems.  The adhesive was similar in appearance to bird-lime.  It had a
charge of 1lb 4oz. of nitro.

     The grenade was prone to misfires and the explosive to leaking and
breakage.  It was forced on the Ordnance Board (long story), who were
utterly unimpressed with it.

     It was used by partisans for demolition in Europe.  There are no
records of it having been used in combat.  It lasted until 1951 (on
paper), but no one saw one after 1944.  They had better anti-tank and
anti-personel grenades after 1941.

     Laterish!

     Ken

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 23:58:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: The K'Kree

> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 02:41:07 +1100 (EST)
> From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
> Subject: The K'Kree
> 
> I hate the K'Kree.  Why doesnt/didnt the Imperium declare war and decimate
> these vegeterian, cabbage eating bums.

Oh, come now, tell us what you *really* think!

> Also, what happened to the two thousand stars during the new era? 

From the heart-rending "Lament of the Long-Grass Plain Families," circa
1140:

  Two thousand glittering worlds of our own,
  Two thousand glittering worlds;
    Virus comes 'round,
    Smashes one down,
  One thousand nine hundred ninety-nine glittering worlds of our own...

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 09:49:30 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)

>More interestingly, why were the Darrians never able to build another
>working Star Trigger (having apparently built one and set it off)?
>
>What are the Darrians *really* hiding about the Star Trigger?
>
>Kind Regards
>
>David Elrick
>
>david.elrick@ps.co.uk

Read the darrians sourcebook to get the truth about the "star trigger".
I will not reveal more=8A

Hail Eris


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 01:05:04 -0900
From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1106

> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 22:09:49 -0600
> From: "K.C. Komosky" <umkomosk@cc.umanitoba.ca>
> Subject: RE: The True History of Hiver manipulations of the K'kree

[Snip]

>  Also, the Hivers are completly, 100% non-spionic. They can
> neither learn psionics, nor be affected by psionic powers.

Maybe that's only what they want _us_  to believe...
TNE's Hivers & Ithulkur pointed out that a non psionic observer has no
way of knowing that someone else is nonpsionic.  Trust is for the
gullible.

> K.C. Komosky

Peter Newman - doing his best to bring you an Illuminated Third Imperium

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 11:36:46 +0100
From: Nicolas LEJEUNE <nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr>
Subject: Question related to Plasmas

I would like to know the 'massive heat rate' for Hydrogen and Hydrogen Plasma

I hope that 'massive hate rate' is a correct translation (I don't think so
in fact)

This is a material caracteristic in J/kg/K
  for water it's 4180 J/kg/K
  for ice it's around 2000 J/kg/K
  for solid aluminium is 440 J/kg/K
That's all the values i've remebered from school

I think there is an equivalent notion for gazes which can be calculated at
constant volume. I've search for values but I don't have found any.

So if any one can give the values (or even just the range of gross
approximation) 
  for air
  for liquid hydrogen
  for hydrogen gaz
  for plasmas (H)
I would be glad

Thanks for help



- -----------
Nicolas LEJEUNE
   Engineer, Paris, France
   Traveller (TNE), and WhiteWolf RPG
   Mailto:nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 12:52:37 +0000
From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Conspiracy theories

It's been great fun reading all the conspiracy theories on the list, 
but we wonder... have you ever stopped to think who suggests these 
theories, and why?

Surely they can't be a smoke-screen for something more mundane and 
more sinister...

If we wanted to rubbish a Solomani faction at the Imperial court, we'd 
be muttering about Templars too. If anyone delves deeply enough into 
the Solomani, they'll probably find all sorts of dirt... some of 
which will become public. Or maybe they'll just occupy the security 
apparat of the faction enough to keep them from noticing our covert 
operations. We might even plant evidence ourselves.

You see, the Hivers aren't the best manipulators in known space. 
They're the best known manipulators. We're so good, you don't know we 
exist, as such.

We might be Imperial Intelligence.

We might be Templars double-bluffing you.

We might be working for the Hivers, or the Zhodani, or Grandad.

Then again... we might not. Or we could be all three. And you have to 
decide whether telling you this is meant as a distraction also.

Agent Orange

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 14:57:56 +0100 (MET)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Black Globes & Jump

Peter Engebos writes:
>>Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org> asks:
>> 
>>DGP's Starship Operator's Manual (for MT) was keen to point out that 
>>it's not just the energy pumped into a j-grid which causes a good 
>>jump, it's the "shape" of the energy profile: you have to charge up 
>>quickly and smoothly, and you can't hold that charge for long.  I 
>>think one reason for this was to imply that unusual means of charging 
>>jump capacitors were at least difficult.
> 
>Under CT, specifically High Guard, this was allowed more or less by the
>rules.  So you had exploration ships, used in pairs, with no Jump Fuel,
>but lots of extra capacitors and PP fuel - still less massive than the
>Jump Fuel - and J6 drives.  They would use their lasers to charge up their
>capaciters and jump 6 along.  They didn't need to refuel for about a year.
>Instant super explorers.

This is a misinterpretation of the CT rules. Or rather a selective reading.
The rule you're talking about does allow a starship to power it's capacitors
through black globe energy absorbsion and to jump when the capacitors has
been charged that way PROVIDED THE SHIP HAS A FULL LOAD OF JUMP FUEL!
(Emphasis mine). So your instant super explorers are not possible even under
CT. You need the fuel in any case.

What is interesting about that rule is that apparently _none_ of the jump fuel 
is used to fuel the jump (Ta-dah!). My favorite explanation is that the 
various jump dimensions are a lot denser than empty space and that a ship
can't just break through the interdimensional barrier into it (that would
be kinda like slaming into a water surface at high velocity: the usually
pliant water suddenly behaves like solid rock). Instead, the "fuel" is 
actually used to create a small "bubble" in jump-space that allows the
ship to slip into it. The bubble only stays open for a few seconds, so the
capacitors must be carefully syncronized to discharge the moment the bubble
is ready. And the reason why more "fuel" is needed to make higher jumps is
that higher jump dimensions are denser. And refined fuel is better than
unrefined because the exact [physical property] of the bubble must be known
to tune the jump field properly. Fuel contaminants introduce random
variations in the [whatever] and increase the risk of misjump.

So why call it fuel if it isn't used as fuel? Because is is also used as
fuel for the power plant. Only technicians and nitpickers call it "access
mass".

I don't claim that this explanation is totally compatible with everything
that's previously been said about jump drives (especially in MT), but I do
think it maintains the idiocyncrasies of the CT jump drive while preventing
most of the obvious problems with the standard explanation.



      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: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 03:24:30 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Re; Shields

In mail you write:

> ObTrav: How is it that Imperial technology can build black globes 
> (CT/MT anyway) but can't rig an off-switch to turn off the field when 
> the capacitors are nearly full?

Simple. What happens when you only have X joules pof capacity left, but
get hit by something with an energy of 2X? :-)

*You* have to decide *before it hits* whether the next shot will kick
you over the limit or not. No way a switch can do that for you.

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 04:20:24 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)

In mail you write:

>> What do the Darriens know, being the closest race to the
>> Ancient's homeworld(s).
>
> More interestingly, why were the Darrians never able to build another   
> working Star Trigger (having apparently built one and set it off)?

You must be misreading something. Everyone treats the Darrians with kid
gloves because they think the Darrians *do* have Star Triggers (yes,
multiple!) and don't want to be on the receiving end of a demonstration.

> What are the Darrians *really* hiding about the Star Trigger?

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. :-)

Seriously, the old Darrians Alien Module covers all of this.

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 02:27:41 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...

In mail you write:

> At 01:05 AM 3/23/97 PST, Leonard Erickson wrote:
>
>>Recoil depends on the mass of the dart, and the muzzle velocity. So
>>it's no harder to manage than for a firearm with the same mass*velocity
>>of the projectile. Note that this is *momentum, *not* "muzzle energy"!
>
> Question:  It's always been my understanding that a gauss rifle would have a
> lower recoil due to the fact that the is accelerated over the length of the
> barrel, not suddenly by the explosion of a powder charge.  Am I
> misunderstanding something?

Work out the acceleration, and the time in barrel implied by it. You
get a time so short that it really doesn't make any difference.

For example, let's assume 5000 m/s, from a 1 meter barrel. 
 D=.5AT^2         V=AT
 1=.5*A*T^2         5000=AT
 2=AT^2             5000/T=A
           2=(5000/T)T^2
           2=5000T^2/T
           2=5000T
           4e-4=T

The dart takes 400 *microseconds* to traverse the barrel.

That's close enough to "instantaneous" for humans.

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 03:05:23 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: The Stuff of Legends...

In mail you write:

> I'm currently re-reading Andre Norton's Sargasso of Space, the first 
> in her series on the Free Trader Solar Queen (the other books in the 
> series are Voodoo Planet--usually found in a double edition with Star 
> Hunter--a book unconnected to the series, Postmarked the Stars, 
> Plague Ship--one that I've lost, if anybody ever comes across a 
> second hand edition, please give me a shout!, and a new 

Check www.powells.com They probably have a copy that they'll ship you.

> volume--co-written with P.M. Griffin, Redline the Stars...Griffin and 
> Norton are coming out with a sequel to Redline sometime this year, 
> called something like "Spaceship for Sale"). In re-reading this book, 
> I'm convinvced that the folks at GDW must of been influenced by 
> Norton's writing as well. We have Free Traders, of roughly the same 
> crew size as the ships we all know and love. A lot of Norton's books 
> share common elements that would fit into Traveller--the Galactic 
> Patrol, the Thieve's Guild, legends of Forerunner races and more.

I still think that it'd be a damn good idea for IG or *somebody* to get
Norton to approve a "sourcebook" for SF RPGs based on her SF books. I'd
love to have *official* info about things like her aliens (Zacathans
especially!), and all the other things.

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 02:43:02 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Shields?

In mail you write:

>>> Quoth MegaTraveller Referee's Manual, page 80:
>>> "White globes restrict any projectile or beam from contacting the craft
>>> while still allowing the occupants to see out and to use sensors without
>>> restriction."
>>
>>Slight problem. To "see out" whether with eyes or sensors requires that
>>the radiation being used be allowed to travell *in*. As an example, if
>>light can only go out, but not in, then you cannot *see* from the
>>inside, but if there's enough illumination of the ship inside the
>>globe, people outside can see it! But a laser won't hit.
>>
>>So it *cannot* be possible to "see out of" a white globe. You can send
>>signals out, you just can't receive.
>>
>
> FF&S, page 59:
> "...white globes were tuned to allow certain narrow wavelengths through.
> These are usually wavelengths which are not particularly useful for
> weaponry, particularly space-based weaponry.  White globe-equiped ships
> thus tend to rely heavily on infrared wavelength radiation for sensors and
> make extensive use of masers for tight beam communications."

Only trouble is, IR is one of the most popular areas for weapons grade
lasers. And high powered masers can ruin your day. Pump enough power
into *any* wavelength and it is dangerous. And anything from the
microwaves on up can be made into a beam weapon suitable for use in space.

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 00:58:17 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Cloning

In mail you write:

> It wouldn't be possible to develop memory recording and implantation? 
> If it is possible, at what TL would it become available?  Imagine the
> implications if it were possible.  Eventually, institutions of higher
> learning would be obsolete.  Bootcamp would become an extended physical
> exercise course.  Many things that are commonplace would change.  I
> can't believe that this can't be done.  It would actually be more
> beneficial to society as a whole than cloning would be.  Thoughts???

I suggest that you read "DeathKiller" by Spider Robinson. He brings up
a lot of the drawbacks of memory read/write technology.

For one thing, this would have to include the ability to *erase*
memories. And that brings up a very important point regarding
identity. What are you without your memories, the memories
(experiences) that have shaped your personality. There's a reason why
the nastiest punishment SF has ever come up with is considered to be
mindwipe. 

And as far as feeding in memories, that can be a boon for education, or
it can be the end of all *possible* freedom. Consider a dictatorship
where they can drag you in and read your memories to find out if you're
realy loyal. And where if you aren't, they can re-write you until you
*are*. 

That's why mindwrite/mindwipe technology is *not* something to be
casually introduced into Traveller.

And then there's the fact that once you have realtime memory read
technology and realtime (or better) memory write technology, you have
"mechanical telepathy" for all intents and purposes. 

That's a technology *crucial* to Vernor Vinge's "Singularity". And we
need to keep Traveller well *away* from any such technology. Or else we
need to adopt something like Vinge's background for "A Fire Upon the
Deep", where the laws of physics restrict tech levels!

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 03:34:59 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Anti-BD grenades

In mail you write:

> Leonard Erickson writes:
>
>> My preferred surprise for boarders in BD is a special grenade. You
>> evacuate the atmosphere, kill the gravity and lob in one. It's a
>> thermal charge wrapped in sodium or potassium. The result is a stream
>> of metal vapor that will flash plate itself over any nearby surface.
>
> Nasty! But actually, won't the BD point-defence laser punch a hole in 
> it? I assume in normal operation the thermal charge turns the metal 
> into vapour, and the grenade bursts when the internal pressure 
> becomes high.  A hole would mean a single stream of metal vapour, 
> which would rapidly cool into small droplets anyway.

No, it emits a steady stream of vapor in lots of directions through
lots of holes. Or perhaps it just emits a burst of vapor (it take some
tests to find out which works best).

But what makes you think the vapour would cool into drops? Sure, it'll
eventually condense, but in a vacuum, the vapor cover cover a *lot* of
distance before running into anything.

Point defense lasers only make things *worse*, as they'll do a *better*
job of vaporizing the metal, and thus getting everything in line of
sight plated.

> Having said which, the thought of one of these being thrown at me
> if I were in a vac suit gives me the screaming heebie-geebies... just 
> think of what the metal would do to almost any suit material you 
> care to name: you'd lose all the surface of the suit, tho' probably 
> not to any real depth.

It's unlikely to react much with the suit. Sodium *is* reactive, but
most suit materials aren't terribly reactive. However, now that you
mention it, I recall that hot akali metals *do* react with
fluorocarbons (they replace the *carbon*, NOTHING will replace the
fluorine!) 

So fluorocarbons would become carbon plus KF/NaF. But the actual heat
energy of the atoms impacting the suit would be low. So most likely
result is just "plating".

Another possibility, for the really fool-hardy is a sodium vapor "gun".
Sort of like a paint sprayer. A couple of "bursts. and the enemy looks
like a Christmas ornament. :-)

> Only real problem is that even if you win, you have a heck of a time 
> cleaning up your ship, what with alkali metal painted all up the 
> walls (and probably not doing them a power of good either).  The best 
> thing to do would be to dissolve the stuff in absolutely dry 
> ethanol, but shipboard all that's going to be available is water 8-).

Actually just repressurize with water vapor, wait an hour or two for
the shine to go away, and add nitrogen. Then hose down the walls while
wearing suits. The (dilute!) hydroxide solution can easily be handled
by the reclamation system.

Remember, we're dealing with a film a few atoms thick in most places.

> Oh, and your stores chief is going to be a nervous individual.

Not *too* nervous. You keep them in vacuum sealed containers, natually.

You *could* try the same thing with things like titanium, except that
it wastes a lot of energy vaporizing it, and it's a royal pain to clean
up.

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 16:08:08 +0100
From: Nicolas LEJEUNE <nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr>
Subject: Re: Black Globes & Jump

Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:

>What is interesting about that rule is that apparently _none_ of the jump
fuel 
>is used to fuel the jump (Ta-dah!). My favorite explanation is that the 
>various jump dimensions are a lot denser than empty space and that a ship
>can't just break through the interdimensional barrier into it (that would
>be kinda like slaming into a water surface at high velocity: the usually
>pliant water suddenly behaves like solid rock). 

It's like the Subspace concept which is defined as an alternative
possibility for FTL travel. The subspace concept also suggest that waves
can travel though it, which is a enormous change to the Traveller background.

>Instead, the "fuel" is actually used to create a small "bubble" in
jump-space that allows the
>ship to slip into it. The bubble only stays open for a few seconds, so the
>capacitors must be carefully syncronized to discharge the moment the bubble
>is ready. And the reason why more "fuel" is needed to make higher jumps is
>that higher jump dimensions are denser. And refined fuel is better than
>unrefined because the exact [physical property] of the bubble must be known
>to tune the jump field properly. Fuel contaminants introduce random
>variations in the [whatever] and increase the risk of misjump.

Very good explaination, I like this one.  


>I don't claim that this explanation is totally compatible with everything
>that's previously been said about jump drives (especially in MT), but I do
>think it maintains the idiocyncrasies of the CT jump drive while preventing
>most of the obvious problems with the standard explanation.

You are right. This explaination isn't the cannon but what is the cannon?.
Maybe several different technologies can coexists in a Traveller univers
especially for different races.


- -----------
Nicolas LEJEUNE
   Engineer, Paris, France
   Traveller (TNE), and WhiteWolf RPG
   Mailto:nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 10:38:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Whats in a name?

   Hi.

> From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>

> Where do the names 'Solomani', 'Vilani' and 'Zhodani' come from?

   "Zhodani" comes from "Zhdant", the name of the homeworld.

   "Vilani" comes from "Vland".

   By extension, "Solomani" comes from a word like "Solmant".  

   I don't know what solmant means, but I would guess that it originally
   meant something like "peace" or "unity", because Hiroshi used the
   word Solomani to mean "all men" when he was addressing his new,
   second Imperium.  Later, racists introduced folk etymologies that
   claimed that the word came from "men of Sol" or "sole men"; by 1100,
   the word refered to men of Terran ancestry, or to members of a racist
   political party founded on Capital after the civil war.  The true
   etymology of "Solomani" is just another one of those intriguing
   mysteries that Marc has left scattered about his universe. 8^)

   (If you tried to coin a word from "Terra", our homeworld, it would be
   something like "Terora'i" or "Terirani".  "Sol" would go to "Osoli"
   or "So'oli" or "Sosoli" or something; I don't really have enough
   examples to deduce the grammatical rule for such "odd" place names!)

   -Rob

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 11:12:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Question related to Plasmas

   Hi.

> I would like to know the 'massive heat rate' for Hydrogen and Hydrogen Plasma

   You mean (en anglais) "specific heat".  For fluids, these vary with
   temperature, but they get fairly constant above room temperature.

  for air                  1.01 J/g K (constant pressure)
  for liquid hydrogen      Dunno. Educated guess = 20-30 J/g K
  for hydrogen gaz         15 J/g K (pressure), 10 J/g K (volume)
  for plasmas (H)          10.4 J/g K (pressure), 6.3 J/g K (volume)

   -Rob

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 09:29:53 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Conspiracy theories

[snippage of twisted conspiracy theory]

     You know, in times like these, I fall back on the wisdom of the
Firesign:

"Everything you know, is wrong!" ;-)

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 09:43:21 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: off topic

     To the person who posted Powell's web address on the list: You are
an evil Zhodani mindmessing fifth columnist pinko commie traitor to the
Imperium!  ;-) 

     I did NOT need such easy access to the biggest and best used
bookstore in the world!!!

     Some things are better left unknown!

Bruce (Wowza...when did this credit card get so hot???!!!) Johnson

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1107
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Wednesday, March 26 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1108



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Ship to Ship Combat (Long)
Re: TRAVELLER ITEMS for AUCTION
Re: Whats in a name?
History of the Geonee, Part 1 (LONG)
History of the Geonee, Part 2 (LONG)
Re: Shields?
Re: Genocidal players & work - live
Re: Genocidal players & work - live
Re: Friendly fire & genetic knowledge
Re: Spinward Marches Campaign (Maps)
Miieu 0 map corrections?
Re: The K'Kree
Re: History of the Geonee, Part 1 (LONG)
Re: Genocidal players & work - live
[FT Q&A] Aliens in T4?
Re: Re: Templars
Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...
Re: Miieu 0 map corrections?

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 11:01:14 -0500
From: James Garriss <jpg@langley.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Ship to Ship Combat (Long)

At 06:45 AM 3/26/97 GMT, you wrote:
>This sounded good. Do you have any more write-ups of this? Hit
>location tables and so on. Are those rules usable with TNE starships?
>Are the damage points to the hull applied after penetration of armor?

I'm guessing this is a reply to Bob Sanders post.  His ship combat system
is remarkably close to mine, so for starters you can visit

  http://www.cs.odu.edu/~garriss

and look for the Simple Space Combat System (SSCS).  It's well organized
and should be easy to follow.  Bob and are starting a project to integrate
our systems together and create a new one designed especially for groups
who don't want to mess with hex maps and such (ie PBeM games).  We'll let
TML know when we're ready for a peer review.

And the system will be built around T4 damage values.  You'll have to
supply the conversion to TNE yourself.

>In my Traveller campaign I have decided to stick with TNE equipment
>and rules, as I doesn't have any good feeling to the T4 starships or
>general mismatch of the rules. 


 James Garriss                             
 System Engineer, MITRE               
 jpg@langley.mitre.org              
 http://www.cs.odu.edu/~garriss      

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 12:08:30 -0500 (EST)
From: <Blaze@concentric.net>
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER ITEMS for AUCTION

Suggested min. bid for the whole mess?

Duane
> 
> That's right, here is the chance you've been waiting for.  Need a copy of
> Starship Operator's Manual, or Vilani and Vargr?  Both are available in the
> auction.  Everything MUST go.  Here's the rules:
> 
> 1.  All prices are considered to include postage to the continental USA.
> Foreign orders add $3.00 for surface postage and more for Priority.
> 
> 2.  Nothing will be shipped until I get a check.  Sorry, but I've been a
> sucker one to many times already in this life.
> 
> 3.  Bids for all items will be posted twice weekly.
> 
> 4.  After the final posting, any additional bids will be directly hashed out
> by me between all remaining bidders.
> 
> 5.  All bids MUST be in whole dollar increments, and payment must be in US
> Dollars.
> 
> 6.  SPECIAL BONUS!!! The Buyer with the highest total price will get free
> 50Cr of Imperial Currency imprinted with Strephon's empression. (In 10Cr slips).
> 
> 7.  Only bid if you intend to buy.
> 
> OK, now on to the items for sale:

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 10:29:25 -0700
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Whats in a name?

Robert Flammang wrote:
> 
>    I don't know what solmant means, but I would guess that it originally
>    meant something like "peace" or "unity", because Hiroshi used the
>    word Solomani to mean "all men" when he was addressing his new,
>    second Imperium.  Later, racists introduced folk etymologies that
>    claimed that the word came from "men of Sol" or "sole men"; by 1100,
>    the word refered to men of Terran ancestry, or to members of a racist
>    political party founded on Capital after the civil war.  The true
>    etymology of "Solomani" is just another one of those intriguing
>    mysteries that Marc has left scattered about his universe. 8^)

Here I thought Solomani was derived from "Sol", the Latin name for
Earth's sun. Thus Solomani means "man from the Sol system".

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 19:49:47 +0100
From: Carlos Alos-Ferrer <alos@merlin.fae.ua.es>
Subject: History of the Geonee, Part 1 (LONG)

        O.K., I have been silent for a time, but the Geonee project is still
going on ;-) and I will continue to share things with all you TMLers...
        The following is the first of a series of reports about the Geonee
history, starting with ancient times, and that will end at the New Era. The
first few correspond to a supposed article written in Mileieu Zero, but i
plan to continue with another article supposedly written at 1100 covering
the Imperial era, and another written at 1,200 about the Rebellion, the
Collapse and the Future...
        As usual, comments are extremely welcome.

================================================================================
HISTORY OF THE GEONEE

From Ancient Times to Year Zero (Part 1)

     The following historical summary of the Geonee race was written by Eneri
Garirmishaa, History Ph.D., and published by the University of Garency
(Massilia 1133) in the imperial year 14.
================================================================================

     The Geonee are frequently considered arrogant by the average sophont in
Massilia sector. This impression frequently comes from the misunderstanding
of their culture. And this culture arises from a distinctive history. One
should not forget that the Geonee have inhabited all their worlds since more
than ten thousand years ago, being the only human race with an interstellar
culture when the Vilani explorers first adventured in the sector.

Early History

     Despite the fact that the Geonee claim to be the Ancients themselves, the
most widely accepted theory states that, as all other human races, they were
brought  from humanity's original homeworld by the Ancients around 300,000
years ago.
     Their destination world was Shiwonee (Massilia 1430), today geologically
unstable, with a large quantity of volcanoes and frequent earthquakes.
     Some geological evidences have given rise to suggestive historical
theories, which essentially state that Shiwonee's current geological
instability is the result of Ancient's manipulation during the Final War
that destroyed them. Nevertheless, these theories have failed to gather
enough evidences to be seriously considered.
     Regardless of its origin, it seems proven that Shiwonee's instability has
had a great impact on the Shiwonee culture, and, specially, on their
inclination towards technology. Early Geonee tribal communities were
frequently affected by natural disasters, a situation which gave high value
to technical skills and technological advantages.
     On the other hand, Shiwonee's climatic cycles forced the Geonee to adopt a
nomadic lifestyle that has also shaped their culture.
     Paleoantropologists place the date of the rise of the modern Homo Geonensis
around -15,000. Scripture first appeared thousand years after that. The
first written record is The Chronicle of the Fall, a text which apparently
gathers legends transmitted via oral transmission. According to these
legends, the Geonee were survivors of a civilization "from the stars" that
was destroyed in a Great War.
     Other conserved texts allow us to establish the existence of a small
network of agricultural communities around the year -13,900. The plains of
Nardaloo, the biggest continent, were the place where the first cities were
built... and destroyed by a great earthquake which geologists have dated in
- -13,660.

The Trillian Empire

     For a long period after that, only minor archaeological evidences of the
primitive Geonee cultures have been found. Then, starting around the year
- -12,700, a seminomad civilization left extensive written records with which
true history starts.
     This civilization, known as the "Trillian Empire", constructed hundreds of
villages and developed a communication and exploration network which
eventually encompassed the whole continent of Nardaloo.
     The Trillian Empire based its development on the possibility to move
relatively large amounts of population between villages as the climatic
conditions changed. This was possible thanks to the construction, upkeeping
and defense of a network of roads.
     A set of five "cities" formed the capital of the Empire. As the temperate
zone moved, the population also moved to the next city, leaving the others
under the protection of minimal garrisons.
     The "capital" population has been estimated in 50,000 people around the
year -12,500.
     The Trillian Empire lasted more than thousand years, but eventually
collapsed after a bloody civil war.

The Discovery of Grandaal

     Around the year -11,500, half a dozen of seminomad nations, rapidly
approaching TL 3, disputed the temperate zones of Nardaloo. These nations
showed most of the features of the current Geonee, including the dominant
role of the Geonee males. The tradition of "kidnapping marriages" can be
traced back to this era, as it is thought that some of the minor
tribe-nations had the custom of raiding others to capture women.
     Population pressures led to long range exploration, and the second
continent, Grandaal, was discovered. Explorers were shocked to discover a
group of primitive cultures based on a matriarchic system, and living in
communities with strange winged creatures with the capability of becoming
invisible: the Chirpers.
     Grandaal was colonized by the Nardaloo nations, and the primitive cultures
were defeated after a series of wars. Nevertheless, the discovery of the
Chirpers and the absortion of the matriarcal cultures had the effect of
creating new rituals and customs, which are probably the origin of the
modern "bond-maker" role of Chirpers.

The Volcanic Winter

     After several centuries of exploration, a small number of TL 4 nations
covered Shiwonee's surface. Some wars took place, but in the overall the
nations concentrated on their own development. Around year -10,700, Shiwonee
could be qualified as TL 5. Then, progress was deterred by an increase in
the geological activity: the explosion of at least six volcanoes in
different locations of the world caused the pollution of the atmosphere with
huge amounts of ashes. This had the effect of blocking solar light and heat,
producing a "nuclear winter" effect. Temperatures decreased below zero
degrees and most of the local flora and fauna died out. Civilization almost
collapsed.
     Fifty years later, when the effects of this volcanic winter diminished, the
survivors started once again to reconstruct their culture. Technical
knowledge had been crucial for survival, and was even more important for
reconstruction. Technicians were the most important members of society, a
position that they still hold.
     After the volcanic winter, Shiwonee population was scarce, and it took a
long time to establish again large communities.

The Meeralo Council

     In year -9,940, according to written reports, the representatives of the 18
largest communities of Shiwonee met at Meeralo, then a prosper city. They
agreed to establish the basis for world government and form a central body
capable of settling disputes among communities and enforcing some world-wide
laws: the Meeralo Council.
     This Council started as the meeting of the representatives of the
communities, but, in the following millennium, evolved towards a form of
coordination organism, formed by 18 distinguished married men. The different
communities retained their independence and disctintive indentity, but the
Meeralo Council handled common affairs. Among these common affairs was the
analysis of recovered antique technology, in fact Ancient artifacts.

        TO BE CONTINUED...
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Alos-Ferrer                          E-mail: Alos@merlin.fae.ua.es
Dpt. Fundamentos del Analisis Economico     Phn: (34) 6 5903400, Ext. 3226
Universidad de Alicante                     Fax: (34) 6 5903685
03071-Alicante (Spain)                      "Thursuth gha kvaekh?"
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 20:03:14 +0100
From: Carlos Alos-Ferrer <alos@merlin.fae.ua.es>
Subject: History of the Geonee, Part 2 (LONG)

       The following is the second of the reports on Geonee history, still
corresponding to a supposed article written in Mileieu Zero.
        Again, comments are extremely welcome.

================================================================================
HISTORY OF THE GEONEE

From Ancient Times to Year Zero (Part 2)

     The following historical summary of the Geonee race was written by Eneri
Garirmishaa, History Ph.D., and published by the University of Garency
(Massilia 1133) in the imperial year 14.
================================================================================

The Space Era

     In year -9,300, Shiwonee was a TL 9 world, and the Meeralo Council
sponsored the Space Service, which explored much of the Shiwonee system. The
declared goal was to "travel again among the stars".
     In -9,270, a space mission met a derelict, an Ancient Starship, in one of
the planetoid belts of the system. After 30 years of research, the Geonee
were able to copy the Jump Drive technology and build the first starships.
     The only world at Jump-1 distance from Shiwonee was visited and named
Prindee (1330), which means "promise". Despite the unappealing conditions
(low gravity, tainted atmosphere), a small colony was established.
     Taking Prindee as an intermediate stop, a small fleet of Jump-1 starships,
capable of making two consecutive jumps, explored the Stenardee Cluster.
Starting with a small base at Stenardee (1130), the whole cluster was
promptly colonized.
     At Lagna (1029), the first colonists discovered remnants of Ancient/Geonee
origin, including Geonee skulls, finally proving the interstellar origin of
the Geonee race. These evidences have been disregarded by non-Geonee
scholars. The Lagna Archaeology Museum holds part of the rests even today.

The Geonee Empire

     In -9,100, following a strong debate on the future of the colonies, a
member of the Meraloo Council was able to gain enough support to force a
more centralized form of government and declared the Geonee Empire. He was
confirmed Emperor Bradasee I by the Meraloo Council, which survived as a
consultative organism.
     The empire emphasized space exploration, and, 20 years later, most of the
Shiwonee and Shokee subsectors had been explored. Most of the worlds were
empty, but a few held some surprises for the Geonee.
     Among these surprises was the presence of Chirpers at Theradway (Massilia
1534), the remnants of an extinguished human (non-Geonee) race at Tanny
(1238), and the presence of an intelligent minor alien race at Llyrn (0931),
then at TL 3.

Contact with the Vilani

     In year -9,000, an even bigger surprise shocked the Geonee, when they were
contacted by scouts of a starfaring human race: the Vilani. The meeting was
also a shock to the Vilani, as they had supposed to be the only race with
Jump Drive.
     The first contacts with the Vilani were full of misunderstandings and
suspicacies. The Vilani legends of fearful God-rulers in the distant past
made the Geonee think that the Vilani were a slave race of their own
ancestors. On the other hand, the Geonee legends about their origins
reminded the Geonee precisely of those feared God-rulers.
     When the cultural exchange was more advanced, the strange views that the
Vilani had about technology (the patent system, the restrictions on
research) led the Geonee to think that the Vilani were a stagnating society.
     Even after contact with the Vilani, the Massilia sector was full of empty
worlds, and the Geonee expansion continued. In -8,700, a colony was
established as far as Forquee (1719), 13 parsecs coreward from Shiwonee.
     In -8,600, the Massilia sector was under the formal supervision of the
Sharushid Vilani bureau. Traders from this bureau discovered that the first
Geonee Jump Drive had been copied from a derelict of unknown origin, and,
after that, the Vilani ceased to consider the Geonee an important race. The
Geonee argued that the vessel was not of unknown origin, but rather an
antique ship of the time the Geonee themselves travelled among the stars.
     But the Geonee were not very much worried about the Vilani beliefs. In the
year -8,500, they had an interstellar society at TL 10, with some TL 11
achievements, and got their hands full with exploration, trade, and
technical research.
     Parahee (2934), 15 parsecs trailing from Shiwonee, was settled in -8,400 as
an outpost to coordinate long range exploration of the Delphi sector. At the
moment, the Geonee had twenty colonies and around thirty outposts.

The First Confederation

     In -8,300, the Geonee Empire was oversized. The centralized structure was
inefficient and the more distant colonies payed little attention to the
Emperor's orders. When Emperor Sadahee III denied an autonomy request from
Forquee, the colonies revolted. The fleets loyal to the Emperor fighted the
rebel colonies for ten years, with little ground combat, and finally Sadahee
III renounced the throne. The Geonee Confederation was born.
     The Meeralo Council assumed the government in Shiwonee, and Sadahee was
granted life membership.
     During the Colonial Revolt, the Vilani remained neutral, but Sharurshid
increased commercial activity in Massilia, which resulted in heavy losses to
the Geonee.
     The Confederation granted almost total autonomy to the most distant
colonies as Forquee. The Vilani pressed the Confederation to join the Ziru
Sirka, but the request was never seriously taken into account by the Geonee.
Both the Vilani and the Geonee were heavily involved in the exploration,
settlement and development of worlds in Massilia sector and close subsectors
in Zarushagar, Core, Diaspora, and Delphi. Rivalries were primarily centered
on trade, and, although occasional skirmishes occurred, the relationship
between the two starfaring races were peaceful.
     In -7,100, the Geonee were a TL 11 society, although the technology for
Jump-2 had not been developed yet. When the Vilani acquired it, they kept
the knowledge strictly in Vilani hands, much to the Geonee dismay.
     Some Geonee scholars defend the theory that undercover Vilani agents
prevented the discovery of Jump-2 by the Geonee by kidnapping certain
researchers and sabotaging key experiments, but this theory has little base.
     Although the nomadic nature of the Geonee made possible that Geonee
communities settled as far as Lishun, the Confederation maintained loose
ties with these settlements and its true territory never encompassed more
than the equivalent of four subsectors in Massilia.
     In -5,100, the Vilani started the Consolidation Wars to force all the
"minor" races to join the Ziru Sirka. The Geonee Confederation resisted by
all means, starting what is known as "The Two Hundred Years War". The Geonee
mobilized as a whole against the Vilani, causing them heavy casualties and
even forcing them to retreat from central Massilia for decades, but,
finally, Vilani war tactics (that included nuking whole worlds) and the
Jump-2 were decisive. The Geonee were defeated in -4,900, and their worlds
incorporated into the Ziru Sirka.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Alos-Ferrer                          E-mail: Alos@merlin.fae.ua.es
Dpt. Fundamentos del Analisis Economico     Phn: (34) 6 5903400, Ext. 3226
Universidad de Alicante                     Fax: (34) 6 5903685
03071-Alicante (Spain)                      "Thursuth gha kvaekh?"
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 11:20:32 -0800
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: Shields?

>> "...white globes were tuned to allow certain narrow wavelengths through.
>> These are usually wavelengths which are not particularly useful for
>> weaponry, particularly space-based weaponry.  White globe-equiped ships
>> thus tend to rely heavily on infrared wavelength radiation for sensors and
>> make extensive use of masers for tight beam communications."

>Only trouble is, IR is one of the most popular areas for weapons grade
>lasers. And high powered masers can ruin your day. Pump enough power
>into *any* wavelength and it is dangerous. And anything from the
>microwaves on up can be made into a beam weapon suitable for use in space.

Even with grav focus, diffraction effects will cause far-IR (100 micron) lasers
to have too much beam spread to do damage at space combat ranges; mm or cm-wave
masers will be even worse off, unl;ess the emitter is
100s of m in diameter.

And, of course, if you can change the allowed wavelength range rapidly,
you can scan it around at random over a wide range (You only need a channel
a few MHz wide for active sensors or commo), and speed-of-light-lag
will prevent the enemy from telling what wavelength you're allowing through
in time to hit you. 

Passive sensors should probably suffer a moderately severe penalty through
a white globe, though, since limiting them to only far-IR wavelengths 
cuts down on signal-to-noise and information...

Bruce

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 97 19:49 GMT0
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Genocidal players & work - live

In-Reply-To: <970324210301_100326.446_JHF144-5@CompuServe.COM>

<< I think I have the trump card on this thread; my players, 
having stolen the Star Trigger from the Darrians, have just 
dropped it into Kirruvirax - the star of the K'kree home >>

Smeggin' 'ell!

    ---------=========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: Wed, 26 Mar 97 19:49 GMT0
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Genocidal players & work - live

In-Reply-To: <970324210301_100326.446_JHF144-5@CompuServe.COM>

<< I think I have the trump card on this thread; my players, 
having stolen the Star Trigger from the Darrians, have just 
dropped it into Kirruvirax - the star of the K'kree home >>

Smeggin' 'ell!

    ---------=========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: Wed, 26 Mar 97 19:49 GMT0
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Friendly fire & genetic knowledge

In-Reply-To: <199703241520.KAA24662@carouge.DMI.USherb.CA>

<<  2) Has anybody made a scenario involving a battle dress and a
bank robbery?  They seem to have caught on in the US... :| >>

My PCs do it all the time! 
<sigh>
If only they'd spend as much time on the *scenario* as they do on the 
bank jobs to fund their shopping trips...

    ---------=========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: Wed, 26 Mar 97 19:49 GMT0
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Spinward Marches Campaign (Maps)

In-Reply-To: <l03020900af5c8ddbb445@[194.119.133.39]>

<< Something that I've tried myself, a long time ago. I came across an
interesting PD programme for the Atari ST that had atlases for the
Imperium, but more intriguingly it allowed you to set the filters of what
you wanted to see, and then print the output. Shame I haven't found
anything similar for the Mac yet. >>

Nice little prog, that - I've still got it somewhere. Not a lot of use on 
my new PC, of course...

    ---------=========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: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 14:03:02 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Miieu 0 map corrections?

I seem to recall, maybe Joe Walsh mentioned, that Marc was planning on
fixing the Sector data for FS and M0 so that Government and Law were no
longer identical. Is this going to be posted or otherwise made available
soon? I want to generate some maps using this stuff, and otherwise mangle
massage and utilize it, and with such a significant aspect of the data
being screwed up, I can't go ahead and do it. Plus if it's going to be
posted it'll save me the hassle of scanning and correcting it.


Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 20:27:37 +1100 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: The K'Kree

On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, Craig Berry wrote:

> 
> > Also, what happened to the two thousand stars during the new era? 
> 
> >From the heart-rending "Lament of the Long-Grass Plain Families," circa
> 1140:
> 
>   Two thousand glittering worlds of our own,
>   Two thousand glittering worlds;
>     Virus comes 'round,
>     Smashes one down,
>   One thousand nine hundred ninety-nine glittering worlds of our own...


hahahahaha :)  Now i know what happened:)



c'ya hate to be ya,

michl

electric RAIN                      http://www.electric-rain.net/


Winning isnt a sometimes thing, Winning is an all time thing.
U dont win once in awhile, U dont do good some of the time,
U do good all of the time, Winning is a habit, but, sadly,
so is losing.
Vince Lombardi

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 20:40:11 +1100 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: History of the Geonee, Part 1 (LONG)

On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Carlos Alos-Ferrer wrote:

> ================================================================================
> 
>    The Geonee are frequently considered arrogant by the average sophont in
> Massilia sector. This impression frequently comes from the misunderstanding
> of their culture. And this culture arises from a distinctive history. One
> should not forget that the Geonee have inhabited all their worlds since more
> than ten thousand years ago, being the only human race with an interstellar
> culture when the Vilani explorers first adventured in the sector.

Incorrect (i think, depending on your definition) The solomani had a
"community" when they meet the vilani, and i assume the zhodani were in a
similiar situation.

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 20:45:21 +1100 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Genocidal players & work - live

On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Andrew Boulton wrote:

Down with the K'Kree!

All we need is a Death star to finish a the job, and make an example of
the K'Kree home world.  No one will challenege the empire after this
litle demonstartion!

:)

> In-Reply-To: <970324210301_100326.446_JHF144-5@CompuServe.COM>
> 
> << I think I have the trump card on this thread; my players, 
> having stolen the Star Trigger from the Darrians, have just 
> dropped it into Kirruvirax - the star of the K'kree home >>
> 
> Smeggin' 'ell!
> 
>     ---------=========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"
> 


c'ya hate to be ya,

michl

electric RAIN                      http://www.electric-rain.net/


Winning isnt a sometimes thing, Winning is an all time thing.
U dont win once in awhile, U dont do good some of the time,
U do good all of the time, Winning is a habit, but, sadly,
so is losing.
Vince Lombardi

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 97 18:08:00 -0500
From: jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN)
Subject: [FT Q&A] Aliens in T4?

Richard Springstead (springstead@hotmail.com) asks...

Will any of the alien races from the earlier Traveller sets be
presented in Marc Miller's Traveller, such as the Aslan, Vargr,
Zhodani, Vegan, etc? What is to become of the Solomani Rim
Campaign?
- ---
  OLXWin 1.00b  Freelance Traveller - The Electronic Fan-supported Traveller Res

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 23:06:05 -0500
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Templars

Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net> wrote:
> From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
> > At 09:56 PM 3/24/97 -0500, Bob wrote:

BIG SNIP

>Oh, *shit*.
>Hivers: Five-fold symmetric, shadowy manipulators, creators of countless tiny spawn.
>Great Old Ones: Ditto.

>Droyne: Hunched, winged, ancient beyond calculation, working secretly to bring about unknown ends.
>Cthulhu: Ditto.

>Perhaps the Necronomicon preserves a racial memory of the great conflict
in which Grandfather and his minions kicked a colony of Hivers off
ancient
Earth, replacing their program of manipulation with his own?  How long
have the Hivers been spacefarers, anyway?  And can we trust the official
answer to this question?<

> I like where this is going...
> I like where this is going...

Whew... That was fun :) 

Next is the virus; Was that a weapon used by the Hivers to stop 
Grandfather?
Were they able to stop his network across known space? 

Revenge is best served cold:->

I say the answer is 42. 
Anyone?


Now, back to your regular TML question:

What are some more ideas for how to handle The Protectors / Templars, 
in M0? 

Strong/weak?
Open/closed?
Active/passive?

Based on their history, how would the resident voice (Craig;))for the
Templars like to see them handled?  Nobles with a mission, or ... what?

Looking for ideas!

Bob

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 18:42:41 +0000
From: "Doctor Vince" <drvince@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...

> For example, let's assume 5000 m/s, from a 1 meter barrel. 

Isn't 5000 m/s overkill, especially for a 4mm dart? The point is to 
actually have stopping power, not just drive neat 4mm holes right 
through the target?

IIRC isn't the muzzle velocity on a 7.62 NATO slug somewhere in the 
1500 m/s range?

One of the neat things I just thought of is that a gauss weapon could 
alter the muzzle velocity of the darts on the fly, boosting it for 
anti-armor, dropping it for anti-personnel... yuk. 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The passion of lovers is for death...
                                    -Bauhaus
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  Vince Coccia, distinguished legal counsel for 
  His Infernal Majesty, is: drvince@ix.netcom.com
- --------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 18:15:46 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: Miieu 0 map corrections?

On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Bruce Johnson wrote:

> I seem to recall, maybe Joe Walsh mentioned, that Marc was planning on
> fixing the Sector data for FS and M0 so that Government and Law were no
> longer identical. Is this going to be posted or otherwise made available
> soon? I want to generate some maps using this stuff, and otherwise mangle
> massage and utilize it, and with such a significant aspect of the data
> being screwed up, I can't go ahead and do it. Plus if it's going to be
> posted it'll save me the hassle of scanning and correcting it.

Hi Bruce,

When the Gov/LL errors are corrected, the data will indeed be posted to 
IG's web site. Of that much I have been assured.

However, I haven't heard any projected dates for when this is to be done. 
I know Marc is currently working on T4 Deluxe, as well as working with 
every designer who is producing supplements for Traveller, to ensure a 
consistency of vision. I don't know when he has the FS correction work 
scheduled for.

But, as soon as I am told a projected date, I'll let you know.


- -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.....

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1108
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Wednesday, March 26 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1109



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)
Re: History of the Geonee, Part 1 (LONG)
Re: Rabbit Hunting
Re: Whats in a name?
Re: Templars
Re: Re: Templars
Cloning and psionics
beyond the rim?
Poor Craig Berry
Re: [FT Q&A] Aliens in T4?
Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...
Re: History of the Geonee, Part 1 (LONG)
Re: Rabbit Hunting
Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)
Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)
Re: The True History of Hiver manipulations of the K'kree
Keep The Flame, everyone!
Re: Ship to Ship Combat (Long)
Re: Cloning

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 20:18:31 +0000
From: Mused <marz@HotStar.net>
Subject: Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)

Glenn M. Goffin, Esq. wrote:
> 
> From: David Elrick <David.Elrick@ps.co.uk>
> >More interestingly, why were the Darrians never able to build another
> working Star Trigger (having apparently built one and set it off)?
> >What are the Darrians *really* hiding about the Star Trigger?
> 
> Alien Realms suggests that they didn't really understand what happened with the first
> Star Trigger, hence were unable to duplicate it.

Okay, I'll talk...

The STar Trigger was not even a weapon. It was a probe that used liquid tungsten to cool 
itself and a meson communicator to report on the inside of the sun as the probe dove 
deeper. Then something happened; the mesons reacted or something and suddenly the star 
sloughed off some matter and a heap of radiation.
It was not a weapon (nor was it a cookbook)

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 16:57:15 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: History of the Geonee, Part 1 (LONG)

At 08:40 PM 3/27/97 +1100, you wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Carlos Alos-Ferrer wrote:
>
>>
================================================================================
>> 
>>   The Geonee are frequently considered arrogant by the average sophont in
>> Massilia sector. This impression frequently comes from the misunderstanding
>> of their culture. And this culture arises from a distinctive history. One
>> should not forget that the Geonee have inhabited all their worlds since more
>> than ten thousand years ago, being the only human race with an interstellar
>> culture when the Vilani explorers first adventured in the sector.
>
>Incorrect (i think, depending on your definition) The solomani had a
>"community" when they meet the vilani, and i assume the zhodani were in a
>similiar situation.
>

I beleive that Carlos is refeering to Massila Sector.  The Geonee indeed
were the only human race "native" to that area to have FTL travel (even if
they got it from Ancient artifacts.)

The Solomani met the Vilani on their *first* interstellar jump. so you
really can't say that they had an interstellar community.  as for the
Zhodani, I'm unaware of any canonical source indicating that they even knew
of each other's existance, let alone met.

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   in clown outfits.    -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 20:20:32 +0000
From: Mused <marz@HotStar.net>
Subject: Re: Rabbit Hunting

Bob Sanders wrote:
> 
> From: David John Yeardly <djy@st-andrews.ac.uk>
> >>>
> In all my time on a millitary range we never fired after the cease fire
> command was given or on poor defensles bunnies - although it has to be
> said that the fine for a ND ( negligent discharge ) probrerbl put us off
> as it is currently running at 600 pounds / round ( yes thats pounds
> stirling approx $1000)
> <<<<
> 
> I must agree. It must be that fine US Army training ;-> that allows such
> UN-disciplined firing.

HEY! I resent that. It was Canadian Forces Primary Reserves (and they did all get in shit, 
but they did have a bit of fun)

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 20:28:39 +0000
From: Mused <marz@HotStar.net>
Subject: Re: Whats in a name?

Robert Flammang wrote:
>    (If you tried to coin a word from "Terra", our homeworld, it would be
>    something like "Terora'i" or "Terirani".  "Sol" would go to "Osoli"
>    or "So'oli" or "Sosoli" or something; I don't really have enough
>    examples to deduce the grammatical rule for such "odd" place names!)

Eartiani (earth), possible becoming Urtiani
Terraists (Terra)
Baloni (Balone)

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 17:28:16 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Templars

At 10:03 AM 3/25/97 -0800, Craig wrote:

>And for that matter, why did the 3I spend so very much effort holding Five
>Sisters/SM?  It's beyond a Sword Worlds chokepoint, *past* unincorporated
>District 268 (in the CT era), strategically all but useless...but Andor
>and Candory, the purported Droyne homeworlds, are smack dab in the middle
>of it.  And right next door are those Darrians with their relic TL17 toys.
>The plot thickens.  Was the push toward the Marches a race to Five
>Sisters?  Was the Darrien Star Trigger disaster a piece of sabotage by
>Grandfather...or someone else?  Why aren't the Zhos more interested in
>pushing rimward?  The truth is out there...
>
>> You want to get real paranoid?  What if this has something to do with why
>> the FIRST Imperium never expanded in Corridor, and why the Zhodani stopped
>> where they did.  What do the Darriens know, being the closest race to the
>> Ancient's homeworld(s).
>
>Exactly.  Suddenly the Darrians become the key to it all...they're
>starting to take on a tinge of Asimov's Foundation, small, weak...but
>maybe running everything in SM and Corridor and perhaps beyond, subtly,
>from behind the scenes.  Of course, their own puppet masters may well be
>just one subsector to trailing...
>
>Imagine if the Darrians really prop up the Sword Worlds as a buffer
>against too much Imperial and Zhodani prying.  Now *there* is a conspiracy
>theory!

Even better.. we have a fiercely independant, exceedingly Solomani culture
pushed right up against the center of the Droyne/Ancients riddle.. Could the
SW be a hotbed of Templar activity in the Classic Era?  Picture it.. The
Darrians, who possibly know that secrets of the Ancients, and the Sword
Worlds, the result of of 2000 years of trying to piece together the mystery!
They both now the legendary homeworld must be nearby, but are too wary of
the other to make an overt move.. then the Imperium comes in and makes a mad
dash for the contested region!  

Take a look at Five Sisters.. Andor and Candory are ringed by Imperial Navy
bases sitting on Amber Zone worlds.  In fact, 8 of the subsector's 27 worlds
are Amber!  What is so dangerous to earn these levels of Naval staffing and
travel codes.. Not even the Sword Worlds or the Zhodani Consulate itself
rates this kind of attention.  (There are seven Navy bases in Five Sisters,
compared to *two* in Jewell, and Jewell faces a far more obvious threat.

>> What was the real cause of the Psionic Supressions... were the Institutes on
>> the verge of something?  Something the secret masters weren't ready to allow.
>
>Oh, undoubtedly.  I would guess that they were on the verge of keying in
>on Grandfather's interstellar data grid, still perhaps in use by Droyne
>and other operatives.  Something had to be done to smack 'em down.

Which implies that the conspiracy has the ability to communicate across
interstellar distances without resorting to starships.

>> A conspiracy extending back over 5000 years.. now who could be behind this?
>> 
>> (Hint: He's scaly, has wings, is real smart, and has a real dysfunctional
>> family...)
>> 
>> As for the Hivers.. Perhaps the reason Hivers and Solomani never really
>> interacted was a shadow war between the Templars and the Hiver Manipulators.
>
>Oh, *shit*.
>
>Hivers: Five-fold symmetric, shadowy manipulators, creators of countless
>tiny spawn.
>Great Old Ones: Ditto.
>
>Droyne: Hunched, winged, ancient beyond calculation, working secretly to
>bring about unknown ends.
>Cthulhu: Ditto.
>
>Perhaps the Necronomicon preserves a racial memory of the great conflict
>in which Grandfather and his minions kicked a colony of Hivers off ancient
>Earth, replacing their program of manipulation with his own?  How long
>have the Hivers been spacefarers, anyway?  And can we trust the official
>answer to this question?

Oh shit indeed!  

Perhaps the Mad Arab wandered into a Hiver *archelogy* team excavating an
Ancient site on the Arabian pennisula.. If he was exposed to some sort of
telepathic "logbook", his mind would have been filled with unfathomable
images of monsters doing inexplicable things, and over all of them, the
image of one great god, immortal and utterly alien. The Hivers might have
explained (somehow, that the "god" in the images was gone, and Abdul mistook
that for sleeping.  Add in his SAN loss (oops, jumped systems for a sec)
*ahem*, trauma from being examined by Hivers, and you've got one bestseller!

He might have even had his inate psionic potential kicked into overdrive,
making him believe he could work magic...

>> I like where this is going...
>
>Tell me about it!  The Outer God Yadroskay, anyone?  (corrupted over
>countless generations into Yog-Sothoth, of course.)

And the Templars of Earth following up on the mystery for 2000 years...

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   in clown outfits.    -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 17:56:41 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Re: Templars

At 11:06 PM 3/25/97 -0500, you wrote:

>Next is the virus; Was that a weapon used by the Hivers to stop 
>Grandfather?

Grandfather isn't a major player anymore.. IMTU (In My Traveller Universe)
Virus was a Mule.. a singular event that caught the shadow organizations by
surprise.  Note however that the Domain of Deneb, including the Darrians,
Sword Worlds, and Five Sisters subsector survived almost intact.

>Were they able to stop his network across known space? 

Since Grandfather's network is either TL25+ or telepathic in nature, I doubt
that the Hivers are even aware that it exists.  As Craig suggested, the
Psionic supressions may have been a Templar action to keep the mass of
humanity from being able to access the Network.

Which make you wonder.. have the Zhodani accesses the Net, and could that be
the cause of the social breakdown we're seeing in the early 1200s?

>I say the answer is 42.

As long as it's in base 6. 

>What are some more ideas for how to handle The Protectors / Templars, 
>in M0? 

The are a shadowy force, moving behind the scenes, directing things to their
own ends.  An Illuminati, if you will.

IMTU, the Templars have been working since the dawn of Solomani spaceflight
to unravel the secrets of the Ancients, and later, to protect mankind from
what they've discovered.

>Based on their history, how would the resident voice (Craig;))for the
>Templars like to see them handled?  Nobles with a mission, or ... what?

Don't trust Craig.. he's one of *them*, I'm one of *us*  :)

The existence of the Templars should be considered a myth, on par with the
belief that Hitler is alive and well in the secret Nazi base in Antartica.
Only considerable digging will reveal that something is going on.

The Templars won't blow up a Starship to silence someone, they'll drive him
crazy, methodically destroy his life, and do it all in the absolute belief
that they are right.

The short lived UPN series "Nowhere Man" had a good plot for this.. A
photographer takes a picture he shouldn't have, and overnight his life
disappers.

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   in clown outfits.    -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 18:29:04 -0800
From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Cloning and psionics

>From: Neveron@aol.com
>Subject: Re: Cloning
>
> How about a wealthy Psionic family that doesn't want to risk losing their
>power by diluting the Psi gene with common stock? Extensive gene therapy
>could combine 'talents' to create a more powerful heir. Weird, but possible.

Do we have any evidence that psionics are linked to genetics in any way?  I don't think 
so -- especially in light of 8,000 years of Zhodani culture, in which testing for 
psionics can be an entree into the ruling class for proles.  

- --Glenn

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 18:26:54 -0800
From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <sudet@well.com>
Subject: beyond the rim?

>From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
>
>Whats beyond the outer empire?  For instance whats beyond the furthest
>reaches of the hiver federation? or Solomani Confederation?  or is this
>just a blank slate?
>

I think that these are regions reserved (for now) for referee development.  So if you 
want "boldly to go where no sophonts from known space have gone before" (precise writing 
is often not grand, I'm afraid), you have to (or get to) create it yourself.  

The Zhodani have gone extremely far toward the core in their somewhat famous Core 
Expeditions.

- --Glenn

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 18:21:08 -0800
From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Poor Craig Berry

>From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
>Subject: Re: Templars
>
>Oh, *shit*.
>
>Hivers: Five-fold symmetric, shadowy manipulators, creators of countless
>tiny spawn.
>Great Old Ones: Ditto.
>
>Droyne: Hunched, winged, ancient beyond calculation, working secretly to
>bring about unknown ends.
>Cthulhu: Ditto.
>
>Perhaps the Necronomicon preserves a racial memory of the great conflict
>in which Grandfather and his minions kicked a colony of Hivers off ancient
>Earth, replacing their program of manipulation with his own?  How long
>have the Hivers been spacefarers, anyway?  And can we trust the official
>answer to this question?
>
>> I like where this is going...
>
>Tell me about it!  The Outer God Yadroskay, anyone?  (corrupted over
>countless generations into Yog-Sothoth, of course.)

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.  The unfortunate Mr. Berry has obviously joined the 
ranks of occult investigators who have gone insane.  His paranoia can be charted ahead 
with some precision.  Soon he'll be seeing perverse geometries in Keith Brothers' art, 
drawing allusions between obscure Contact! races and obscure Mythos minions, and 
accusing me of being a pawn, or worse, of the unholy Elder Gods.  Sigh.

He has good company in his madness, to be sure, but still, we'll miss his presence on 
the TML.  He often had good things to say.  We'll still see postings with his signature, 
of course, but we all know that they won't be from him.  They'll be from whatever his 
cracked mind has become.  He may even be lucid from time to time.  Who knows.

- --Glenn

"It's a terrible thing to lose one's mind, and what a waste that is" or words to that 
effect.  --poorly remembered Dan Quayle during the '92 US presidential campaign

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 21:00:35 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: [FT Q&A] Aliens in T4?

On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, JEFF ZEITLIN wrote:

> Richard Springstead (springstead@hotmail.com) asks...
> 
> Will any of the alien races from the earlier Traveller sets be
> presented in Marc Miller's Traveller, such as the Aslan, Vargr,
> Zhodani, Vegan, etc?

In a word: yes.

The latest edition of Traveller does not change the familiar Traveller 
universe, although it will eventually look at it in many different eras 
(in the series of Milieu books that are planned). The alien races still 
exist, although we will learn of new ones (we've already learned of some 
through _Alien's Archive_).  

Imperium Games currently plans to release a series of Alien Hardbound 
Volumes. At this point, each is planned to include two or three major 
races, and between two and four minor races. The first one is planned for 
release in August, and will provide a great deal of detail about Aslan 
and Vargr. Not only will the familiar material be included, it will also 
provide typical Aslan and Vargr cities, special equipment used by those 
races, and so on. The minor races to be included haven't been revealed at 
this time.


> What is to become of the Solomani Rim Campaign?

Once we return to the period in which that occurred, there may be a 
supplement on it.  But that'll be quite a while from now. :)  1997 is 
dedicated to Milieu 0 support material (as well as efforts to undo the 
errors of the first releases in the T4 line). 1998 will probably 
concentrate on Milieu 200.  Beyond that, we're getting too far in the 
future for anything more than theoretical discussion. =)


- -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: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 22:17:18 +0000
From: Mused <marz@HotStar.net>
Subject: Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...

Doctor Vince wrote:
> IIRC isn't the muzzle velocity on a 7.62 NATO slug somewhere in the
> 1500 m/s range?

A little closer to 900m/sec

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 01:19:41 +1100 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: History of the Geonee, Part 1 (LONG)

On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Douglas E. Berry wrote:

> At 08:40 PM 3/27/97 +1100, you wrote:
> >On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Carlos Alos-Ferrer wrote:
> >
> >Incorrect (i think, depending on your definition) The solomani had a
> >"community" when they meet the vilani, and i assume the zhodani were in a
> >similiar situation.
> >
> 
> I beleive that Carlos is refeering to Massila Sector.  The Geonee indeed
> were the only human race "native" to that area to have FTL travel (even if
> they got it from Ancient artifacts.)

Fair Enougth

> 
> The Solomani met the Vilani on their *first* interstellar jump. so you
> really can't say that they had an interstellar community.  as for the
> Zhodani, I'm unaware of any canonical source indicating that they even knew
> of each other's existance, let alone met.

Hmmm, would'nt the term 'interstellar' include the Colonies earth had
within the Sol system?

Maybe not, i dont have a dictionary handy. 

Also, technically, this is correct, the Terrans meet the Vilani on there
first jump, but they meet Vilani Miners, no official contact.  Official
contact occured sometime after this first jump and the first interstellar
war.

Between first contact and the first intersteller war the Solomani had
estabblished (and claimed) Barnarb and the Cenaturi twins (A and B), as
well as 6 outpost worlds.  Im bassing this assertion on the game
'Imperium' which begins during the 2nd intersteller war, The confederation
had three Home World systems (not including Terra) and 6 outpost worlds.

But im just playing with words:)


PaChi,

michl

electric RAIN                      http://www.electric-rain.net/

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 22:23:12 -0500 (EST)
From: TBSVT@aol.com
Subject: Re: Rabbit Hunting

In a message dated 3/23/97 9:06:37 PM, you wrote:

<<Canadian Forces. 
A rabbit, for some reason unknown to humaniti, ran across the range,
whereupon 
everyone showed a complete disregard for fire discipline. The actual range
was about 50m>>

Why do I see A group of elmer fudd's " kill the wabbit kill the wabbit Killll
the wabbit"

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 21:33:48 -0800
From: David Smart <dsmart@flash.net>
Subject: Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)

Mused wrote:
> 
> Glenn M. Goffin, Esq. wrote:
> >
> > From: David Elrick <David.Elrick@ps.co.uk>
> > >More interestingly, why were the Darrians never able to build another
> > working Star Trigger (having apparently built one and set it off)?
> > >What are the Darrians *really* hiding about the Star Trigger?
> >
> > Alien Realms suggests that they didn't really understand what happened with the first
> > Star Trigger, hence were unable to duplicate it.
> 
> Okay, I'll talk...
> 
> The STar Trigger was not even a weapon. It was a probe that used liquid tungsten to cool
> itself and a meson communicator to report on the inside of the sun as the probe dove
> deeper. Then something happened; the mesons reacted or something and suddenly the star
> sloughed off some matter and a heap of radiation.
> It was not a weapon (nor was it a cookbook)

True, but the Darrians Alien Module includes an adventure in which the
Darrians are able to figure out what really happened and, thereby, be
able to recreate the effect. Ergo, the Darrians really *do* have a
working solar flare inducer.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 22:22:06 -0500
From: Daniel Poulin <pould@netcom.ca>
Subject: Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)

At 20:18 25/03/97 +0000, Mused wrote:
>Glenn M. Goffin, Esq. wrote:
>> 
>> From: David Elrick <David.Elrick@ps.co.uk>
>> >More interestingly, why were the Darrians never able to build another
>> working Star Trigger (having apparently built one and set it off)?
>> >What are the Darrians *really* hiding about the Star Trigger?
>> 
>> Alien Realms suggests that they didn't really understand what happened
with the first
>> Star Trigger, hence were unable to duplicate it.
>
>Okay, I'll talk...
>
>The STar Trigger was not even a weapon. It was a probe that used liquid
tungsten to cool 
>itself and a meson communicator to report on the inside of the sun as the
probe dove 
>deeper. Then something happened; the mesons reacted or something and
suddenly the star 
>sloughed off some matter and a heap of radiation.
>It was not a weapon (nor was it a cookbook)
>
>
The secret has been spilled, DEATH TO THE EVIL ONE!! :-)

It's things like these that make me soooooo happy to own a copy of every
single traveller book produced (well, almost every one - I exclude T4 from my
list since I don't buy anything (sorry Mark, this has nothing to do with you
and everything to do with the cost of the books).

The Darrians book (the only minor race to have its own book)was one of the best
(I didn't care too much for the pointed ears though.  I liked the Hiver book
very much 
also and the Solomani book next (our descendants are assholes...:-)).

Daniel Poulin
pould@netcom.ca

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 97 21:33:00 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: Re: The True History of Hiver manipulations of the K'kree

In a message dated 1997-03-26 03:32, Solomani wrote:

>I never had the Hiver Alien Module, so what is this manipulation exactly?
>I have a rudimentry knowledge of the hive and its seems there quite
>peacefull, is this manipulation psionic?

Absolutely not. Hivers have no psionic talent whatsoever. A Hiver would 
be absolutely appaled  at your suggestion. Psionics is far too crude and 
obvious to be used as the stimulus to a manipulation.

What follows is a brief quote from the Alien Module 7: Hivers (CT)

"Manipulation is a uniquely Hiver phenomenon. It is an accepted activity 
which accords the successful manipulator respect and admiration from the 
population in general. It is a way for individuals to achieve a lasting 
sort of fame in their society.

Manipulation is rigidly defined by the Hivers to include four components: 
the deed, the manipulator, the consequences, and the claim of credit. 
Each component has been carefully refined and defined, and its 
requirements must be carefully met for it to be accepted."

Here's a brief synopsis of the four components of a successful 
manipulation:

1. Deed: Stimulus that sets the manipulation into motion. The stimulus 
must be premeditated by the manipulator, and carefully recorded. The 
Hiver is awarded "bonus points" for finesse if the deed is judged small 
and innocuous.

2. Manipulator: Hiver who performs the deed. That person may be open and 
direct, or work behind the scenes. In all cases, a true manipulation 
calls for the manipulator to be working alone and totally responsible for 
the act.

3. Consequences: Results of the initial act. There are obvious results to 
any Deed, and the evaluation of any manipulation ignores them. The 
unobvious effects are the true effects of a manipulation. The manipulator 
must predict them correctly.

4. Claim of credit: The manipulator must reveal the manipulation and 
present its evidence of responsibility and prediction of the 
consequences. Upon evaluation, the event is acknowledged as a 
manipulation (or not) and proper records are made.

Acknowledged manipulators are accorded a courtesy title of Manipulator 
(abbreviated M.) in respect for their deeds.

===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 21:40:13 -0800
From: David Smart <dsmart@flash.net>
Subject: Keep The Flame, everyone!

Alas, Reality is rearing its ugly head at work and I won't have time
to wade through everyone's great email for about 2 months.

Keep the flame, folks, and I'll see ya'll in a few.

Unsuscribe traveller@MPGN.COM

(Hope I got that right)

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 19:37:43 -0500
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: Ship to Ship Combat (Long)

> From: starwolf@sn.no (StarWolf)
> This sounded good. Do you have any more write-ups of this? Hit
> location tables and so on. 

Yes. No hit location. But critical damage calculation tables, etc... It
is in the middle of a CT/MT -> T4 conversion. The reason for the post
was to see if anyone was interested in the system. If the response was
too low, I was going to just keep the old system for my use and not
bother with T4.

> Are those rules usable with TNE starships?
I am sure they can be. Let me explain. During the time that I played
Traveller I used ships from all games. Traveller, MT, StarTrek,
Battlestar G., Starwars. I would convert the ships into a base set of
values: Metric Tons, Armor Class, Drives, Jump Cap, Weapon Factors,
Crew, Boats, etc... Then I would plug these numbers into a spreadsheet
and Presto, I had a Ship Layout for my game. I would do a little
research as to the size, tonnage, crew, weapons, etc. and if I did not
have "real" numbers, I would make them up based on what I guessed the
capabilities were. I could then use this ship, and any deck plans,
without trouble. Nothing like seeing several old Cylon (SP?) ships face
off with several Star Destroyers and the PC in a Viper trying to explain
to Darth just who these guys chasing him were. Yes, It sounds a little
space opera now, but at the time (early 80's), what fun! 

> Are the damage points to the hull applied after penetration of armor?
No, Armor adds hull points as a percentage. example: If Armor is 20%
over average, then the ship gets 20% more hull hits. Simple.
 
> In my Traveller campaign I have decided to stick with TNE equipment
> and rules, as I doesn't have any good feeling to the T4 starships or
> general mismatch of the rules.=20

No problem, I may stick with MT with some CT stuff and LOTS of house
rules. The best reason for staying with Traveller is the depth of
history and information available. Otherwise, I think the rules have
suffered, IMHO.

Bob

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 20:39:17 -0500
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: Cloning

From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
In mail you write:
>>>>
snip
or one thing, this would have to include the ability to *erase*
memories. And that brings up a very important point regarding
snip
<<<<

One of the best campaigns I ran involved a Powerful Warlord in the
Beyond who had spies running around kidnapping people (along with other
apparently evil stuff). =20

The PC's had a couple of encounters with some of his minions, but did
not have a clue what this guy was up to, nor did they really care. Live
and let live they figured. They only got involved when some of their
NPC's turned up missing. They tracked them down to this guy, so they
tried to kill him. But he was way too powerful. They escaped, but only
after losing two more PC's in the fighting (and a bunch of NPC=92s: of th=
e
40 people who went in, only two got away, and they were to warn=20
everyone else to stay away!). They still did not have a clue what this
guy was doing, only that he kidnapped people throughout the Beyond,
would strip their skills, then use those skills to program his clone
warriors for some supposedly evil purpose, leaving behind nothing but a
useless body.

The PC's were pissed! (and a little wigged out!) So they hired on some
more PC's (for the two players who were finding out just how much fun it
is to role-play a vegetable), and got together with an army of Mercs and
went after this guy. After fighting down to the strong hold, and
confronting the evil warlord, they asked him; "WHY?! Why are you doing
this?"=20

His answer;
"Fools, you are about to destroy everyone! If you kill me, you will
release this onto the universe!" and he revealed a portal onto another
planet with evil incarnate swarming toward them. Only the steady stream
of Clone Warriors were keeping the race at bay.=20

After awhile the Skills in the clone machine would have to be
replenished with some "Fresh" skills. The only place to get them was to
steal them. From living bodies.

That stopped the PC's in their tracks. What was the more evil: Leaving
this guy to strip friends and families minds, or this horrible unknown
race on the other side of the portal. You could hear the wheels
grinding.
(evil smile)
>>>
snip
That's why mindwrite/mindwipe technology is *not* something to be
casually introduced into Traveller.
snip
<<<
No kidding. But it makes for a great artifact controlled by some evil(?)
NPC.  The background for this story was MUCH more involved, what with
the Zhodani, the Imperial Navy and Intelligence, little black balls,
research stations, tactical nukes, and great reversals with huge
questions of morality.

Bob

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1109
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Thursday, March 27 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1110



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: off topic
Re: Spinward Marches Campaign (Maps)
Geonee Sourcebook working again.
Re: Poor Craig Berry
Mindwipe (was re: Cloning)
Injury in Careers
Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...
Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)
Re: Rabbit Hunting
Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)
Re: Templars
Re: Templars
Re: Poor Craig Berry
Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)
Templars and Darrians and Hivers oh my!
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1107
Norton Tidbit, Volume II
Re: The Darrians

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 20:03:06 -0800
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: off topic

At 09:43 AM 3/26/97 -0700, Bruce Johnson wrote:
>    To the person who posted Powell's web address on the list: You are
>an evil Zhodani mindmessing fifth columnist pinko commie traitor to the
>Imperium!  ;-) 
>
>    I did NOT need such easy access to the biggest and best used
>bookstore in the world!!!

Yeah, I had a similar reaction.  Ahhh, the days when I could spend endless
hours in the coffee shop or in the Gold Room or the Blue Room or the Purple
Room... argh.  And now I'm stuck in the Bay Area... but at least I have
relatives there (heh heh heh).


- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 20:23:48 -0800
From: "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Spinward Marches Campaign (Maps)

>In-Reply-To: <l03020900af5c8ddbb445@[194.119.133.39]>
>
><< Something that I've tried myself, a long time ago. I came across an
>interesting PD programme for the Atari ST that had atlases for the
>Imperium, but more intriguingly it allowed you to set the filters of what
>you wanted to see, and then print the output. Shame I haven't found
>anything similar for the Mac yet. >>
>
>Nice little prog, that - I've still got it somewhere. Not a lot of use on
>my new PC, of course...

I've one word for you EMULATION!  I don't know about the PC, but there is
an Atari ST emulater for the Macintosh available at
http://www.emulation.net/ the bad news is it's a demo with a 15 minute
timer.  The good news is even on a lot of 68k Macs it's supposed to be
faster than the real thing.

So where can the atlas viewer be found?

               Zane



| Zane H. Healy                    | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh@ix.netcom.com (primary)  | Linux Enthusiast          |
| healyzh@holonet.net (alternate)  | Mac Programmer            |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------+
| For Empire of the Petal Throne, and Traveller Role Playing   |
| see http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/                      |

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 21:18:43 CST
From: galliand@juno.com (Scott M Galliand)
Subject: Geonee Sourcebook working again.

The Geonee Online Sourcebook is updated and working again (I promise). 
Real life took a bit of a toll on me and kept me from updating it.

Recent additions (from the time before I blew the links):

Geonee Ship Construction article
Geonee Free Trader (QSDS 1.5)
Geonee Character Creation article
Update Geonee Timeline
Complete Subsector Data for TNE Shiwonee and Shokee subsectors

All the above work was written by Carlos, except for the Free Trader,
which I created.

I promise, the page does work (I tested it this time immediately after
uploading).

Please, if there are any comments on the site, please send them to me,
not Carlos.  He does the content, but I put the material into HTML format
for the Sourcebook.  You can send the technical contents to
galliand@juno.com.

Thanks, and enjoy!

Scott Galliand
Archivist, Geonee Online Sourcebook

http://members.aol.com/sgalli5794/traveller/geonee/

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 02:56:42 +1100 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Poor Craig Berry

On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Glenn M. Goffin, Esq. wrote:

> 
> "It's a terrible thing to lose one's mind, and what a waste that is" or words to that 
> effect.  --poorly remembered Dan Quayle during the '92 US presidential campaign
> 

"Its a terrible thing to lose ones mind, or not to have a mind at all"
- -quayle92

PaChi,

michl

electric RAIN                      http://www.electric-rain.net/


"I discovered my wife in bed with another man, and I was crushed.  So I said, 'Get off me, you two!'"EmoP

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 22:32:52 +0000
From: "Bill Hopper" <whopper@pobox.com>
Subject: Mindwipe (was re: Cloning)

> To:            traveller@MPGN.COM
> shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
> In mail you write:
> ... What are you without your memories, the memories
> (experiences) that have shaped your personality. There's a reason why
> the nastiest punishment SF has ever come up with is considered to be
> mindwipe. 
> ...
> That's why mindwrite/mindwipe technology is *not* something to be
> casually introduced into Traveller.
> 
In my CT campaign, this was the ultimate punishment, and occurred only 
on Hi-Law, Hi-Tech worlds.  The players were _usually_ very careful 
on these worlds.  

I did have one new PC who opened up with an auto-pistol in public on 
one of these worlds.  He got off lightly.  The party hired a local 
lawyer who managed to have the sentence reduced to mental 
conditioning.  The marine was conditioned so that the thought of 
physical violence made him physically ill.  The conditioning could be 
removed at any Higher-Tech, Hi-Pop world, but the player just 
couldn't deal with it long enough to get to one.

WKH

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 20:44:17 -0800
From: rdhough@orca.bc.ca (Richard Hough)
Subject: Injury in Careers

I like the effect of the injury roll in the career tables, but don't like
the description given in the rules. What kind of "injury" would remove
characters from their careers, yet not have any effect on attributes or
lasting health consequences? The injury must be fairly minor since it gives
no restrictions on any further careers, military or otherwise. Why would an
injured character be discharged anyway? I know people who have been badly
injured and they didn't get fired immediately. Injuries which would result
in amputation a century ago can now be handled with antibiotics, and I
would assume medicine as higher TLs would be even more effective. Yet there
is no injury DM for tech level. The entire rule is vague and
military-oriented.

However, I like the game effect the roll has; characters can involuntarily
change careers mid-way through a term. The way I handle this is to simply
rename the "Injury" roll the "Unemployment" roll; it means that for some
reason the character was dismissed from his or her career prematurely; the
player has to come up with the reason. Possibilities include injury,
layoffs, incompetence, personality conflicts, bankruptcy, moving to another
planet, a criminal conviction, insubordination, a corporate buyout, even
religious conversion. The rules are the same, but this method lets the
player help create the character's background and provides some more plot
threads.

- --
Richard Hough
rdhough@orca.bc.ca

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 05:02:50 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...

On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 18:42:41 +0000, you wrote:

> IIRC isn't the muzzle velocity on a 7.62 NATO slug somewhere in the=20
> 1500 m/s range?

More like 800-900 m/s (depending on the weapon).

> One of the neat things I just thought of is that a gauss weapon could=20
> alter the muzzle velocity of the darts on the fly, boosting it for=20
> anti-armor, dropping it for anti-personnel... yuk.=20

Useful for conserving battery life, that's for sure :)

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 97 22:56:42 -0600
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)

On 03/26/97 at 09:49 AM,  anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman) said:

> Read the darrians sourcebook to get the truth about the "star trigger". I
> will not reveal more 

> Hail Eris

Why, thank you Anders!  Hail to you too. ;->


Eris,
    yes it's my *real* name
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 00:48:15 -0500
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: Rabbit Hunting

David John Yeardly writes:

>In all my time on a millitary range we never fired after the cease fire 
>command was given or on poor defensles bunnies - although it has to be 
>said that the fine for a ND ( negligent discharge ) probrerbl put us 
>off as it is currently running at 600 pounds / round ( yes thats pounds 
>stirling approx $1000)

   Given how notoriously underfunded the British military is, I'm sure
the fine was imposed not so much to save the lives of animals as it was
to save ammunition.

Bob Sanders, jarhead, writes:

> I must agree. It must be that fine US Army training ;-> that allows
> such UN-disciplined firing. 

   At least we know a flank is not just a cut of meat.  :-)

   In general in the US Army, you can get in *big* trouble for
continuing to discharge your weapon after the signal is given to cease
fire.  I say in general, because the punishment inflicted upon any one
soldier or unit will vary depending upon the circumstances and the mood
of the range control officer.  No weapon should ever be considered
incapable of accidentally discharging, which is why you keep them
pointed *down range* at a range in the first place.

Regards,

Harold D. Hale
U.S. Army Reserve

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 21:43:29 -0800
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)

At 09:33 PM 3/26/97 -0800, David Smart wrote:
>> The STar Trigger was not even a weapon. It was a probe that used 
>> liquid tungsten to cool itself and a meson communicator to report on 
>> the inside of the sun as the probe dove deeper. Then something happened; 
>> the mesons reacted or something and suddenly the star sloughed off some 
>> matter and a heap of radiation.  It was not a weapon (nor was it a 
>> cookbook)
>
>True, but the Darrians Alien Module includes an adventure in which the
>Darrians are able to figure out what really happened and, thereby, be
>able to recreate the effect. Ergo, the Darrians really *do* have a
>working solar flare inducer.

Well, that's what they _want_ you to think.

Either a) they theatrically produced another inert device (filled with old
pinball parts, probably) and dumped it into a star they knew was about to
flare anyway, or...

b) It wasn't a weapon, nor was it was a simple recording device.  It did
not malfunction.  The "meson communicator" may have been a form of exhaust
or a navigational stabilizer; in any event there is fragmentary but strong
evidence that the liquid tungsten was merely a jacket that shielded a
short-lived unstable reactor that generated far too many mesons and
tachyons, among other exotic particles.  The intent was to get the device
as deep as possible into a star so that when the shielding failed, the
escaping reaction would cause the star to flare, or better, go nova.  This,
as I'm sure you see clearly now, could only have been a signal, or a
beacon, to some unthinkably ancient malefic beings searching for upstart
sentients with just the right technology level.  Fnord.


- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 22:47:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Templars

> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 23:06:05 -0500
> From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>

[My and others' Grand Unification between Traveller and Call of Cthulhu
omitted]

> Next is the virus; Was that a weapon used by the Hivers to stop 
> Grandfather?

Nope.  It was really part of the Phoenix Project.  But that's another
story entirely.  I'd guess Grandpa *did* have a hand in creating the
ancestral Chips of Cymbelline, however.

> Were they able to stop his network across known space? 

No chance.  The net is psionic, and that's a major weak spot for the
Hivers.

> Now, back to your regular TML question:
> 
> What are some more ideas for how to handle The Protectors / Templars, 
> in M0? 
> 
> Strong/weak?
> Open/closed?
> Active/passive?
> 
> Based on their history, how would the resident voice (Craig;))for the
> Templars like to see them handled?  Nobles with a mission, or ... what?

Based both on the historical Templars, and on the way a big conspiracy has
to operate, I'd lay odds that there's a visible, accessible front
organization...call it the "Knights of the Temple of Light," nice
innocuous name, or whatever...that has a public, well-defined mission --
guarding the spaceways, protecting minor races, heck, running youth soccer
teams and charity hospitals.  Like, oh, say, just f'rinstance, the Octagon
Society, to pull in a name at random.

Membership may be severely restricted (by social rank, or recommendation
requirements, or whatnot), and is considered highly prestigious -- like
the Masons about 50 years ago.  Most members stop there, using the
organization as a business club and social arena.  They go through some
initiations, learn some secret words, get some good solid spiritual
advice, and there it stops.

All of this is merely a veil for the *real* Templars -- who will all deny
to their last breath that such an organization exists, much less that they
are members -- chosen carefully from the ranks of the outer order for
further initiation and training, based on the needs of the inner order and
the merits of each individual.  Part of this level of involvement is
acceptance of death as the penalty for betraying the order, and the
Templars have historically been ruthlessly efficient at carrying this out. 

As has been suggested, the Templars -- the *real* Templars -- will always
operate in secret, eschewing direct confrontation unless there are no
witnesses.  If a ship needs to be eliminated, it won't be confronted by a
Templar cruiser with lasers blazing -- instead, a mechanic a starport
somehow forgets to realign the jump grid stabilizer properly, and the ship
disappears forever on its next jump.

The innermost circle of the Templars -- perhaps a few hundred sophonts
throughout the Imperium -- are all psionics, trained to previously
unsuspected heights of acuity and power.  A few of these can (unreliably,
at great cost in pain and short-term sanity) tap into Grandfather's
communication grid and send messages instantly across the parsecs. 

Preliminary contact has been made via this channel with a group of Zhodani
researchers investigating the same phenomenon.  Note that this contact
preceded physical meeting with the Zhodani, and helped influence the
expansion and commercial patterns of the growing Empire -- though whether
Cleon himself was directly informed or not remains a mystery.

The Templars are not strong in numbers or resources, but rather in
information and influence.  These latter are often far more dangerous than
the former two.

That good enough for y'all? :)

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 23:30:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Templars

> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 17:28:16 -0800
> From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
> 
> At 10:03 AM 3/25/97 -0800, Craig wrote:
> >Imagine if the Darrians really prop up the Sword Worlds as a buffer
> >against too much Imperial and Zhodani prying.  Now *there* is a conspiracy
> >theory!
> 
> Even better.. we have a fiercely independant, exceedingly Solomani culture
> pushed right up against the center of the Droyne/Ancients riddle.. Could the
> SW be a hotbed of Templar activity in the Classic Era?

PERFECT!!!  There we have it, the requisite fraternizing with (and
learning from) the 'enemy' to complete the Templar archetype.

> Picture it.. The
> Darrians, who possibly know that secrets of the Ancients, and the Sword
> Worlds, the result of of 2000 years of trying to piece together the mystery!
> They both now the legendary homeworld must be nearby, but are too wary of
> the other to make an overt move.. then the Imperium comes in and makes a mad
> dash for the contested region!  

And of course neither of them can kick up *too* much of a fuss without
tipping their hands.

You know, the more I think about it, the more Five Sisters looks like a
big magnet, pulling in every culture in this part of the galaxy.  A bunch
of Solomani went *way* out of their way to colonize next door, when their
must have been a gazillion worlds closer to home; the Darrians grew up
next door, and of course rocketed up the TLs until that tragic 'accident'; 
the 3I and Zhos pushed for the Marches as fast as they could get there; 
hell, a bunch of Solomani got within a few dozen parsecs using *slower
than light travel from Earth!* (see the Islands Cluster).  Then Aslan
ihatei start spilling into this very region from rimward, despite the
difficulties of crossing the Great Rift.  What *is* it about the
rim-wpinward corner of the Marches that makes everyone want to go there,
hmmmm? 

> Take a look at Five Sisters.. Andor and Candory are ringed by Imperial Navy
> bases sitting on Amber Zone worlds.  In fact, 8 of the subsector's 27 worlds
> are Amber!  What is so dangerous to earn these levels of Naval staffing and
> travel codes.. Not even the Sword Worlds or the Zhodani Consulate itself
> rates this kind of attention.  (There are seven Navy bases in Five Sisters,
> compared to *two* in Jewell, and Jewell faces a far more obvious threat.

And I'd lay odds on a covert military presence on most of the other worlds
within J6 of Andor/Candory.

> >Oh, undoubtedly.  I would guess that they were on the verge of keying in
> >on Grandfather's interstellar data grid, still perhaps in use by Droyne
> >and other operatives.  Something had to be done to smack 'em down.
> 
> Which implies that the conspiracy has the ability to communicate across
> interstellar distances without resorting to starships.

Yep, sure do, don't it? :)

> Perhaps the Mad Arab wandered into a Hiver *archelogy* team excavating an
> Ancient site on the Arabian pennisula.. 
[snip]
> He might have even had his inate psionic potential kicked into overdrive,
> making him believe he could work magic...

I am in awe.  This is all starting to fit.  Anybody recall what Grandpa
calls his pocket universe.  I'll put a nickle on something I can credibly
mangle into "R'lyeh."

> >Next is the virus; Was that a weapon used by the Hivers to stop 
> >Grandfather?
> 
> Grandfather isn't a major player anymore.. IMTU (In My Traveller Universe)
> Virus was a Mule.. a singular event that caught the shadow organizations by
> surprise.  Note however that the Domain of Deneb, including the Darrians,
> Sword Worlds, and Five Sisters subsector survived almost intact.

Yeah, not Grandpa's fault, but our Friends of Yadroskay do pretty well by
themselves in keeping Virus away.  One wonders if Granddad didn't do a
little covert vampire removal work to help out, before the Regency got its
defenses in order.

> >Were they able to stop his network across known space? 
> 
> Since Grandfather's network is either TL25+ or telepathic in nature, I doubt
> that the Hivers are even aware that it exists.  As Craig suggested, the
> Psionic supressions may have been a Templar action to keep the mass of
> humanity from being able to access the Network.

That part is looking more and more solid to me.  The interesting question
now is whether they did it at Grandfather's behest (knowingly or
unknowingly) or simply to reserve it for themselves.

> Which make you wonder.. have the Zhodani accesses the Net, and could that be
> the cause of the social breakdown we're seeing in the early 1200s?

Absolutely, positively.  And (as I mentioned in another post), the
Templars have been in direct zero-transit-time contact with Zhodani psi
researchers since around year 0 -- so the Templars find out about the
whole Empress Wave mess before *anyone* else in the 3I does.

> >What are some more ideas for how to handle The Protectors / Templars, 
> >in M0? 
> 
> The are a shadowy force, moving behind the scenes, directing things to their
> own ends.  An Illuminati, if you will.

With, I'd allege, one or possibly more front organizations.

> >Based on their history, how would the resident voice (Craig;))for the
> >Templars like to see them handled?  Nobles with a mission, or ... what?
> 
> Don't trust Craig.. he's one of *them*, I'm one of *us*  :)

Believe who you will.  History will record the merit of your judgement.

> The existence of the Templars should be considered a myth, on par with the
> belief that Hitler is alive and well in the secret Nazi base in Antartica.
> Only considerable digging will reveal that something is going on.

Yes, the existence of the 'inner order' will be like this.  Equivalent to
the "Freemasons run the world" line of conspiracy theories; everyone knows
the Masons *exist*, just most people view them as balding businessmen who
occasionally wear funny hats, rather than an elite force of secret
masters.  My view of the Templars has secret masters hiding behind the
balding sophonts in funny hats. :)

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 23:40:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Poor Craig Berry

> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 18:21:08 -0800
> From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <sudet@well.com>
>
> A mind is a terrible thing to waste.  The unfortunate Mr. Berry has obviously joined the 
> ranks of occult investigators who have gone insane.  His paranoia can be charted ahead 
> with some precision.  Soon he'll be seeing perverse geometries in Keith Brothers' art, 
> drawing allusions between obscure Contact! races and obscure Mythos minions, and 
> accusing me of being a pawn, or worse, of the unholy Elder Gods.  Sigh.
 
Gurdjieff, Reich, Tesla, Alhazred...funny how the establishment's tricks
never change, isn't it?  Those who wander too close to the truth are
declared insane.  I wear Glenn's allegations as a badge of honor!  Of
*honor*, I say!  You may laugh now, foolish ones, but when the shadowy
forms of the Old Ones descend from the stars and end this charade, who
shall be laughing *then*?  Hmmmm???

Oh, sorry, forgot my meds.  Just a sec...

*sigh* Much better.

Oh, and the "pawn of the Elder Gods" on this list has already (and
unwisely) revealed himself, and it's not you, but rather the blatant
"pawn@cam.org".  "CAM" is clearly an acroynym for "Covenant of the Ancient
Masters," "ORG" short for "Orgone."  'Nuff said. 

> He has good company in his madness, to be sure, but still, we'll miss his presence on 
> the TML.  He often had good things to say.  We'll still see postings with his signature, 
> of course, but we all know that they won't be from him.  They'll be from whatever his 
> cracked mind has become.  He may even be lucid from time to time.  Who knows.

Don't hold your breath, Byakhee chow.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 09:24:10 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)

>Why, thank you Anders!  Hail to you too. ;->
>
>
>Eris,
>    yes it's my *real* name

Actually, the fact that your name is Eris was a coincidence.
I was referring to the Illuminatus greeting in reference to the Fnord in
the header.
Is that synchronocity or what?

<intentionally vague and ambiguous mode OFF>


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 00:16:49 -0800 (PST)
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Templars and Darrians and Hivers oh my!

Sorry, I'm in a different editor and can't quote the passage, but someone 
was commenting on how Five Sisters subsector was full of Imperial Navy 
bases on AZ worlds.  

This tidbit from Supplement 9, Fighting Ships, is fuel on the fire: 
"Several individual Tigresses [dreadnaught class ships; 500 ktons] have
been deployed among the worlds of the Five Sisters subsector to enforce
the amber zone blockade of Candory and Andor." 

I'd say something's up.  What's most interesting to me is that Marc and 
Loren basically dropped this thread over time.  Did they just happen to 
decide to develop other issues in the Traveller universe, or were they 
persuaded to do so?  Why doesn't Fifth Frontier War show the Five Sisters 
campaign?  I smell a cover-up.  

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 08:54:08 +0000 (GMT)
From: David John Yeardly <djy@st-andrews.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1107

AD28 ar

"Splice the main brace" out

A quaint Royal Navy amungst others order meaning "issue the Rum"

Abbolished on a daily basis in the mid 70's but still can be ordered on 
asspicious occasions or by the lord high Admiral, Nick the greek and a 
couple of others

Dave y

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 97 05:02:32 -0400
From: FKiesche@concentric.net
Subject: Norton Tidbit, Volume II

Greetings All:

Here's another adapted tidbit from Andre Norton's Sargasso of Space =
(Book One of the Solar Queen Series). Any suggestions on whether this =
makes sense? I see this as being more of a M0 kind of device, where =
the newly expanding Imperium would be interested in any data that =
traders pushing back the frontier would have...

M

Master Book: Astrogation manual utilized by astrogators on starships. =
No longer a book, but still called that as the original Vilani =
versions were hardbound books. As a ship checks in for annual =
maintenance, one of the maintenance tasks is to take the Master Book =
to the local branch of the IISS where it is updated with new =
information (changes in travel zone status, newly charted stars or =
planets, changes to starport types, etc.). A Master Book is an =
integral part of the ship=B9s operating system, it is coded to that =
ship and cannot be removed and used in another ship (not legally). =
The ship=B9s astrogator can also make entries as the ship travels =
throughout the year; these entries, however, are not permanently =
entered into the Master Book unless counter-approved by the IISS.

And here's a few other hints that may excite the imagination buds...

Crax Seed: Naturally occuring drug that effects humaniti as well as =
several other carbon-based races. In humans it enhances (temporarily) =
the user with abnormal reaction speed, a heightened intellect and =
super enhanced senses and motor control. However, it is also very =
addictive and the withdrawal symptons are nearly always fatal. The =
Imperium attempted to refine Crax Seed for use in the Imperial Army =
and Marines, an experiment that ended in failure. It is rumored that =
some drug corporations are still experimenting with the illegal =
substance.

Limbians: Natives of the planet Limbo. Body consists of two blobes, =
one half as large as the other. No discernable head. From the larger =
(lower) globe protrudes two pairs of very thin and flexible jointed =
limbs. From the smaller (upper) globe project another pair of =
flexible limbs, each of which end in a cluster of hair-fine =
appendages. The globes are joined by a slender waist. There are not =
visible eyes, ears or mouth. The globes which form the body are a =
grayish-white in color and are semi-transparent. By looking closely =
one can see reddish internal structural supports which serve as bones =
as well as internal organs.

Storm Dancers of Gorbe (no explanation for this one yet, it just =
sounded neat!).


Frederick Paul Kiesche III
(FKiesche@concentric.net)
(Traveller since 1977!)
(Knight of the Third Imperium--Strephon Himself did it to me!)

"Travel in the company of this Ebokin delegation will be, to say the =
least, trying. Like most of her kind, the Fifth Speaker to the =
Lawless is a petulant, self-centered, and demanding individual."

- --The Traveller Adventure, GDW, 1983

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 01:41:53 -0900
From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
Subject: Re: The Darrians

> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 20:18:31 +0000
> From: Mused <marz@HotStar.net>
> Subject: Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)
> 
> Glenn M. Goffin, Esq. wrote:
> >
> > From: David Elrick <David.Elrick@ps.co.uk>
> > >More interestingly, why were the Darrians never able to build another
> > working Star Trigger (having apparently built one and set it off)?
> > >What are the Darrians *really* hiding about the Star Trigger?
> >
> > Alien Realms suggests that they didn't really understand what happened with the first
> > Star Trigger, hence were unable to duplicate it.
> 
> Okay, I'll talk...
> 
> The STar Trigger was not even a weapon. It was a probe that used liquid tungsten to cool
> itself and a meson communicator to report on the inside of the sun as the probe dove
> deeper. Then something happened; the mesons reacted or something and suddenly the star
> sloughed off some matter and a heap of radiation.
> It was not a weapon (nor was it a cookbook)
> 

Begin Paranoid Mode

Oh sure The Darrians Module says that The Star Trigger was not a weapon
but do you _believe_ this story ? Obviously the pro Darrian writers were
just trying to portray these evil being in a favorable light for a
mostly Solomani audience.  The Darrians were obviously trying to achieve
just what they got, a star trigger. They clearly intended to use this
ultimate weapon as a part of their ethnic cleansing project to rid the
universe of other races.  At the time they developed the Star Trigger
they did not even _have_ any neighbors but they knew, from the Solomani
colonists, that other humans were out there & they were determined to be
able to wipe them out.  Naturally even in their most secret documents
(on which the Alien Module was based) they perpetuated the fiction that
the Maghriz was the fluke result of two unrelated programs and not the
fault of over zealous members of the military industrial complex.

     We need to be aware of the vast danger that threatens us in the form of
Darrian infiltrators plotting to destroy our culture from within.  We
must exterminate the race before it is too late.  As a further proof of
the Darrians evil I would like to point out that Darrians never have to
diet or watch their weight, their metabolisms just burn off the extra
calories (and where do these calories go, I ask you, but towards
powering their plot against us).

     Did you ever wonder _why_ The Darrians are the only minor race to get
their own Alien Module - obviously the brave and heroic Marc Miller as
part of his program to save the universe for its true heirs caused the
document to be published to warn us about the extent of the Darrian
plot.  Even someone so wise & powerfull as Marc hesitated to go up
against The Darrian Plot so the clues to the Darrians evil are cleverly
hidden throughout the module but a carefull reading of its text will
reveal the plot to you.

End Paranoid Mode

Peter Newman - who's obviously been reading too much Focalt lately

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1110
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Thursday, March 27 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1111



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Poor Craig Berry
Re: Traveller Weirness Part Deux
Re: Question related to Plasmas
Re: Orbital reentry
Re: Darrians & Templars & Zhodani Oh My ! (was Re: Templars)
Re: History of the Geonee, Part 1 (LONG)
Specific heat capacity (from TML)
Black globes
Re: Anti-BD grenades

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 01:52:38 -0900
From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
Subject: Re: Poor Craig Berry

> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 18:21:08 -0800
> From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <sudet@well.com>
> Subject: Poor Craig Berry

[Snip]

> A mind is a terrible thing to waste.  The unfortunate Mr. Berry has obviously joined the
> ranks of occult investigators who have gone insane.  His paranoia can be charted ahead with some precision.  Soon he'll be seeing perverse
geometries in Keith Brothers' art,
> drawing allusions between obscure Contact! races and obscure Mythos minions,

No Contact! races or Mythos creatures are obscure to a _true_ student.

> and
> accusing me of being a pawn, or worse, of the unholy Elder Gods.  
> - --Glenn

You admit to being a lawyer, isn't that worse than being a pawn of the
eldar gods ?

Peter Newman - whose glad he did not go to law school

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 01:47:17 -0900
From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
Subject: Re: Traveller Weirness Part Deux

Traveller-digest wrote:
> 
> Traveller-digest     Wednesday, March 26 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1109

> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 20:18:31 +0000
> From: Mused <marz@HotStar.net>
> Subject: Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)
> 
> Glenn M. Goffin, Esq. wrote:
> >
> > From: David Elrick <David.Elrick@ps.co.uk>
> > >More interestingly, why were the Darrians never able to build another
> > working Star Trigger (having apparently built one and set it off)?
> > >What are the Darrians *really* hiding about the Star Trigger?
> >
> > Alien Realms suggests that they didn't really understand what happened with the first
> > Star Trigger, hence were unable to duplicate it.
> 
> Okay, I'll talk...
> 
> The STar Trigger was not even a weapon. It was a probe that used liquid tungsten to cool
> itself and a meson communicator to report on the inside of the sun as the probe dove
> deeper. Then something happened; the mesons reacted or something and suddenly the star
> sloughed off some matter and a heap of radiation.
> It was not a weapon (nor was it a cookbook)

> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 17:28:16 -0800
> From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
> Subject: Re: Templars
> 
> At 10:03 AM 3/25/97 -0800, Craig wrote:
> 
> >And for that matter, why did the 3I spend so very much effort holding Five
> >Sisters/SM?  It's beyond a Sword Worlds chokepoint, *past* unincorporated
> >District 268 (in the CT era), strategically all but useless...but Andor
> >and Candory, the purported Droyne homeworlds, are smack dab in the middle
> >of it.  And right next door are those Darrians with their relic TL17 toys.
> >The plot thickens.  Was the push toward the Marches a race to Five
> >Sisters?  Was the Darrien Star Trigger disaster a piece of sabotage by
> >Grandfather...or someone else?  Why aren't the Zhos more interested in
> >pushing rimward?  The truth is out there...
> >
> >> You want to get real paranoid?  What if this has something to do with why
> >> the FIRST Imperium never expanded in Corridor, and why the Zhodani stopped
> >> where they did.  What do the Darriens know, being the closest race to the
> >> Ancient's homeworld(s).
> >
> >Exactly.  Suddenly the Darrians become the key to it all...they're
> >starting to take on a tinge of Asimov's Foundation, small, weak...but
> >maybe running everything in SM and Corridor and perhaps beyond, subtly,
> >from behind the scenes.  Of course, their own puppet masters may well be
> >just one subsector to trailing...
> >
> >Imagine if the Darrians really prop up the Sword Worlds as a buffer
> >against too much Imperial and Zhodani prying.  Now *there* is a conspiracy
> >theory!
> 
> Even better.. we have a fiercely independant, exceedingly Solomani culture
> pushed right up against the center of the Droyne/Ancients riddle.. Could the
> SW be a hotbed of Templar activity in the Classic Era?  Picture it.. The
> Darrians, who possibly know that secrets of the Ancients, and the Sword
> Worlds, the result of of 2000 years of trying to piece together the mystery!
> They both now the legendary homeworld must be nearby, but are too wary of
> the other to make an overt move.. then the Imperium comes in and makes a mad
> dash for the contested region!
> 
> Take a look at Five Sisters.. Andor and Candory are ringed by Imperial Navy
> bases sitting on Amber Zone worlds.  In fact, 8 of the subsector's 27 worlds
> are Amber!  What is so dangerous to earn these levels of Naval staffing and
> travel codes.. Not even the Sword Worlds or the Zhodani Consulate itself
> rates this kind of attention.  (There are seven Navy bases in Five Sisters,
> compared to *two* in Jewell, and Jewell faces a far more obvious threat.
> 
> >> What was the real cause of the Psionic Supressions... were the Institutes on
> >> the verge of something?  Something the secret masters weren't ready to allow.
> >
> >Oh, undoubtedly.  I would guess that they were on the verge of keying in
> >on Grandfather's interstellar data grid, still perhaps in use by Droyne
> >and other operatives.  Something had to be done to smack 'em down.
> 
> Which implies that the conspiracy has the ability to communicate across
> interstellar distances without resorting to starships.
> 
> >> A conspiracy extending back over 5000 years.. now who could be behind this?
> >>
> >> (Hint: He's scaly, has wings, is real smart, and has a real dysfunctional
> >> family...)
> >>
> >> As for the Hivers.. Perhaps the reason Hivers and Solomani never really
> >> interacted was a shadow war between the Templars and the Hiver Manipulators.
> >
> >Oh, *shit*.
> >
> >Hivers: Five-fold symmetric, shadowy manipulators, creators of countless
> >tiny spawn.
> >Great Old Ones: Ditto.
> >
> >Droyne: Hunched, winged, ancient beyond calculation, working secretly to
> >bring about unknown ends.
> >Cthulhu: Ditto.
> >
> >Perhaps the Necronomicon preserves a racial memory of the great conflict
> >in which Grandfather and his minions kicked a colony of Hivers off ancient
> >Earth, replacing their program of manipulation with his own?  How long
> >have the Hivers been spacefarers, anyway?  And can we trust the official
> >answer to this question?
> 
> Oh shit indeed!
> 
> Perhaps the Mad Arab wandered into a Hiver *archelogy* team excavating an
> Ancient site on the Arabian pennisula.. If he was exposed to some sort of
> telepathic "logbook", his mind would have been filled with unfathomable
> images of monsters doing inexplicable things, and over all of them, the
> image of one great god, immortal and utterly alien. The Hivers might have
> explained (somehow, that the "god" in the images was gone, and Abdul mistook
> that for sleeping.  Add in his SAN loss (oops, jumped systems for a sec)
> *ahem*, trauma from being examined by Hivers, and you've got one bestseller!
> 
> He might have even had his inate psionic potential kicked into overdrive,
> making him believe he could work magic...
> 
> >> I like where this is going...
> >
> >Tell me about it!  The Outer God Yadroskay, anyone?  (corrupted over
> >countless generations into Yog-Sothoth, of course.)
> 
> And the Templars of Earth following up on the mystery for 2000 years...
> 
> - --
> +-------------------------------------------------+
> |   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
> |      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
> |   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
> |         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
> |*************************************************|
> |   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
> |   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
> |   in clown outfits.    -News of the Weird       |
> +-------------------------------------------------+
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 17:56:41 -0800
> From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
> Subject: Re: Re: Templars
> 
> At 11:06 PM 3/25/97 -0500, you wrote:
> 
> >Next is the virus; Was that a weapon used by the Hivers to stop
> >Grandfather?
> 
> Grandfather isn't a major player anymore.. IMTU (In My Traveller Universe)
> Virus was a Mule.. a singular event that caught the shadow organizations by
> surprise.  Note however that the Domain of Deneb, including the Darrians,
> Sword Worlds, and Five Sisters subsector survived almost intact.
> 
> >Were they able to stop his network across known space?
> 
> Since Grandfather's network is either TL25+ or telepathic in nature, I doubt
> that the Hivers are even aware that it exists.  As Craig suggested, the
> Psionic supressions may have been a Templar action to keep the mass of
> humanity from being able to access the Network.
> 
> Which make you wonder.. have the Zhodani accesses the Net, and could that be
> the cause of the social breakdown we're seeing in the early 1200s?
> 
> >I say the answer is 42.
> 
> As long as it's in base 6.
> 
> >What are some more ideas for how to handle The Protectors / Templars,
> >in M0?
> 
> The are a shadowy force, moving behind the scenes, directing things to their
> own ends.  An Illuminati, if you will.
> 
> IMTU, the Templars have been working since the dawn of Solomani spaceflight
> to unravel the secrets of the Ancients, and later, to protect mankind from
> what they've discovered.
> 
> >Based on their history, how would the resident voice (Craig;))for the
> >Templars like to see them handled?  Nobles with a mission, or ... what?
> 
> Don't trust Craig.. he's one of *them*, I'm one of *us*  :)
> 
> The existence of the Templars should be considered a myth, on par with the
> belief that Hitler is alive and well in the secret Nazi base in Antartica.
> Only considerable digging will reveal that something is going on.
> 
> The Templars won't blow up a Starship to silence someone, they'll drive him
> crazy, methodically destroy his life, and do it all in the absolute belief
> that they are right.
> 
> The short lived UPN series "Nowhere Man" had a good plot for this.. A
> photographer takes a picture he shouldn't have, and overnight his life
> disappers.
> 
> - --
> +-------------------------------------------------+
> |   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
> |      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
> |   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
> |         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
> |*************************************************|
> |   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
> |   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
> |   in clown outfits.    -News of the Weird       |
> +-------------------------------------------------+

> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 18:21:08 -0800
> From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <sudet@well.com>
> Subject: Poor Craig Berry
> 
> >From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
> >Subject: Re: Templars
> >
> >Oh, *shit*.
> >
> >Hivers: Five-fold symmetric, shadowy manipulators, creators of countless
> >tiny spawn.
> >Great Old Ones: Ditto.
> >
> >Droyne: Hunched, winged, ancient beyond calculation, working secretly to
> >bring about unknown ends.
> >Cthulhu: Ditto.
> >
> >Perhaps the Necronomicon preserves a racial memory of the great conflict
> >in which Grandfather and his minions kicked a colony of Hivers off ancient
> >Earth, replacing their program of manipulation with his own?  How long
> >have the Hivers been spacefarers, anyway?  And can we trust the official
> >answer to this question?
> >
> >> I like where this is going...
> >
> >Tell me about it!  The Outer God Yadroskay, anyone?  (corrupted over
> >countless generations into Yog-Sothoth, of course.)
> 
> A mind is a terrible thing to waste.  The unfortunate Mr. Berry has obviously joined the
> ranks of occult investigators who have gone insane.  His paranoia can be charted ahead
> with some precision.  Soon he'll be seeing perverse geometries in Keith Brothers' art,
> drawing allusions between obscure Contact! races and obscure Mythos minions, and
> accusing me of being a pawn, or worse, of the unholy Elder Gods.  Sigh.
> 
> He has good company in his madness, to be sure, but still, we'll miss his presence on
> the TML.  He often had good things to say.  We'll still see postings with his signature,
> of course, but we all know that they won't be from him.  They'll be from whatever his
> cracked mind has become.  He may even be lucid from time to time.  Who knows.
> 
> - --Glenn
> 
> "It's a terrible thing to lose one's mind, and what a waste that is" or words to that
> effect.  --poorly remembered Dan Quayle during the '92 US presidential campaign
> 

> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 21:33:48 -0800
> From: David Smart <dsmart@flash.net>
> Subject: Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)
> 
> Mused wrote:
> >
> > Glenn M. Goffin, Esq. wrote:
> > >
> > > From: David Elrick <David.Elrick@ps.co.uk>
> > > >More interestingly, why were the Darrians never able to build another
> > > working Star Trigger (having apparently built one and set it off)?
> > > >What are the Darrians *really* hiding about the Star Trigger?
> > >
> > > Alien Realms suggests that they didn't really understand what happened with the first
> > > Star Trigger, hence were unable to duplicate it.
> >
> > Okay, I'll talk...
> >
> > The STar Trigger was not even a weapon. It was a probe that used liquid tungsten to cool
> > itself and a meson communicator to report on the inside of the sun as the probe dove
> > deeper. Then something happened; the mesons reacted or something and suddenly the star
> > sloughed off some matter and a heap of radiation.
> > It was not a weapon (nor was it a cookbook)
> 
> True, but the Darrians Alien Module includes an adventure in which the
> Darrians are able to figure out what really happened and, thereby, be
> able to recreate the effect. Ergo, the Darrians really *do* have a
> working solar flare inducer.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 22:22:06 -0500
> From: Daniel Poulin <pould@netcom.ca>
> Subject: Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)
> 
> At 20:18 25/03/97 +0000, Mused wrote:
> >Glenn M. Goffin, Esq. wrote:
> >>
> >> From: David Elrick <David.Elrick@ps.co.uk>
> >> >More interestingly, why were the Darrians never able to build another
> >> working Star Trigger (having apparently built one and set it off)?
> >> >What are the Darrians *really* hiding about the Star Trigger?
> >>
> >> Alien Realms suggests that they didn't really understand what happened
> with the first
> >> Star Trigger, hence were unable to duplicate it.
> >
> >Okay, I'll talk...
> >
> >The STar Trigger was not even a weapon. It was a probe that used liquid
> tungsten to cool
> >itself and a meson communicator to report on the inside of the sun as the
> probe dove
> >deeper. Then something happened; the mesons reacted or something and
> suddenly the star
> >sloughed off some matter and a heap of radiation.
> >It was not a weapon (nor was it a cookbook)
> >
> >
> The secret has been spilled, DEATH TO THE EVIL ONE!! :-)
> 
> It's things like these that make me soooooo happy to own a copy of every
> single traveller book produced (well, almost every one - I exclude T4 from my
> list since I don't buy anything (sorry Mark, this has nothing to do with you
> and everything to do with the cost of the books).
> 
> The Darrians book (the only minor race to have its own book)was one of the best
> (I didn't care too much for the pointed ears though.  I liked the Hiver book
> very much
> also and the Solomani book next (our descendants are assholes...:-)).
> 
> Daniel Poulin
> pould@netcom.ca
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 97 21:33:00 -0600
> From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
> Subject: Re: The True History of Hiver manipulations of the K'kree
> 
> In a message dated 1997-03-26 03:32, Solomani wrote:
> 
> >I never had the Hiver Alien Module, so what is this manipulation exactly?
> >I have a rudimentry knowledge of the hive and its seems there quite
> >peacefull, is this manipulation psionic?
> 
> Absolutely not. Hivers have no psionic talent whatsoever. A Hiver would
> be absolutely appaled  at your suggestion. Psionics is far too crude and
> obvious to be used as the stimulus to a manipulation.
> 
> What follows is a brief quote from the Alien Module 7: Hivers (CT)
> 
> "Manipulation is a uniquely Hiver phenomenon. It is an accepted activity
> which accords the successful manipulator respect and admiration from the
> population in general. It is a way for individuals to achieve a lasting
> sort of fame in their society.
> 
> Manipulation is rigidly defined by the Hivers to include four components:
> the deed, the manipulator, the consequences, and the claim of credit.
> Each component has been carefully refined and defined, and its
> requirements must be carefully met for it to be accepted."
> 
> Here's a brief synopsis of the four components of a successful
> manipulation:
> 
> 1. Deed: Stimulus that sets the manipulation into motion. The stimulus
> must be premeditated by the manipulator, and carefully recorded. The
> Hiver is awarded "bonus points" for finesse if the deed is judged small
> and innocuous.
> 
> 2. Manipulator: Hiver who performs the deed. That person may be open and
> direct, or work behind the scenes. In all cases, a true manipulation
> calls for the manipulator to be working alone and totally responsible for
> the act.
> 
> 3. Consequences: Results of the initial act. There are obvious results to
> any Deed, and the evaluation of any manipulation ignores them. The
> unobvious effects are the true effects of a manipulation. The manipulator
> must predict them correctly.
> 
> 4. Claim of credit: The manipulator must reveal the manipulation and
> present its evidence of responsibility and prediction of the
> consequences. Upon evaluation, the event is acknowledged as a
> manipulation (or not) and proper records are made.
> 
> Acknowledged manipulators are accorded a courtesy title of Manipulator
> (abbreviated M.) in respect for their deeds.
> 
> ===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 17:20:39 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Question related to Plasmas

In mail you write:

> I would like to know the 'massive heat rate' for Hydrogen and Hydrogen Plasma

The phrase is "specific heat".

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 17:24:12 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Orbital reentry

In mail you write:

> A cry for help from the TML: 
> Does anybody know what is the *minimum possible* size of a vehicle 
> capable of orbital re-entry?

Too small to see. Seriously! 

The Soviets *regularly* had satellites returning film cannisters. Say
something the size of a lunchbox. And smaller is *easier*.

> I am thinking of the CT concept of the 
> spacesuit 'reentry kit' complete with can of 'ablative foam' that allows 
> a vacc suited person to survive reentry on a 7+ (+2 per level of Vacc 
> suit skill).

<snip>

> I guess the real question is: is a "foamed ablative re-entry package" 
> possible, or would you need a one-person reentry vehicle a la Apollo 
> missions? And how small could such a vehicle be? 

The rules swiped the idea from proposals for a emergency escape system
from the Shuttle/Space Station.

If you've ever seen a full size mockup of a Mercury capsule, you'd know
that you don't "get into" it, as much as you *wear* the silly thing.
And with the advances in both knowledge and materials we could do better.

The real problems are keeping acceleration low, keeping the RV from
tumbling, and the ability to choose a landing point.

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

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 02:33:37 -0900
From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
Subject: Re: Darrians & Templars & Zhodani Oh My ! (was Re: Templars)

> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 17:28:16 -0800
> From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
> Subject: Re: Templars
> 
> At 10:03 AM 3/25/97 -0800, Craig wrote:
> 
> >And for that matter, why did the 3I spend so very much effort holding > >Five
> >Sisters/SM?  It's beyond a Sword Worlds chokepoint, *past* > >unincorporated
> >District 268 (in the CT era), strategically all but useless...but > >Andor
> >and Candory, the purported Droyne homeworlds, are smack dab in the > >middle
> >of it.  And right next door are those Darrians with their relic TL17 > >toys.
> >The plot thickens.  Was the push toward the Marches a race to Five
> >Sisters?

The Regency Sourcebook says (pg 48) "The subsector had not been heavily
settled throughout the pr-Collapse era. Serious colonization only began
in 740, but was cut short with the start of the Psionic Suppressions in
800 [ ! ! ! ], and the frontier wars made it clear that major Imperial
development would not be practical in this area.....in the new friendly
climate between the Zhodani and Domain/Regency, development and
migration long-postponed began in earnest in the 1130's..." 

     Why did the frontier wars make it clear ? Does this sentance just have
its apparent surface meaning that the Imperium did not have the
resources to develop this area and fight the Zhodani at the same time ? 
Was this all part of the Zhodhani (who have a precognative Ancients
Artifact don't forget) plans from the beginning ? Was it really a
coincidence that Olav hault_Plankwell who, as Grand Admiral of the
Marches, defeated the Out-World Coalition in the First Frontier War
later went on to become the first of the Emporers of the Flag ?  If
_that_ was a coincidence how can we explain Arbatrella who, as Grand
Admiral of the Marches, defeated the Out-World Coalition in the Second
Frontier War later went on to become the last Emporer of the Flag and
the first of the reigning Alkhalikoi dynasty ?  Did the Zhodani loose
the Frontier wars on purpose to help make these people into heros as
part of their psychohistorical manipulation of the Third Imperium ? 

     Was the failure of the secret Imperial psychohistory project that
attempted to turn public opinion against psionics and failed when it
worked _too_ well really a failure, or was it part of a SORAG plot ? Was
stopping development of this area part of the secret Zhodani peace
conference agendas during the Frontier Wars ? Is it really a coincidence
that Archduke of the Domain of Deneb Norris Aella Aledon had a psionic
'seneschal' (I believe the phrase I'm really looking for is longtime
companion) ? Was it really a coincidence that Norris's father & brother
died so close to the same time under mysterious circumstances ?  What is
the significance of Norris's background in Naval Intelligence ? Was
Norris a Templar ?  How did Norris know to seal off the Domain from the
Virus ?

The answers to these and other exciting questions can be yours next week
on As The Imperium Turns.

[Snip]

> > > where they did.  What do the Darriens know, being the closest race > > >to the
> > > Ancient's homeworld(s).
> >
> >Exactly.  Suddenly the Darrians become the key to it all...they're   
> >starting to take on a tinge of Asimov's Foundation, small, weak...but
> >maybe running everything in SM and Corridor and perhaps beyond,      > >subtly,
> >from behind the scenes.  Of course, their own puppet masters may well > >be
> >just one subsector to trailing...

[Snip]

> Take a look at Five Sisters.. Andor and Candory are ringed by Imperial Navy
> bases sitting on Amber Zone worlds.  In fact, 8 of the subsector's 27 worlds
> are Amber!  What is so dangerous to earn these levels of Naval staffing and
> travel codes.. Not even the Sword Worlds or the Zhodani Consulate itself
> rates this kind of attention.  (There are seven Navy bases in Five Sisters,
> compared to *two* in Jewell, and Jewell faces a far more obvious threat.

Yes but obviously 69 million TL 8 and 9 Droyne are 4 times the threat
that trillions of TL 14 Zhodhani are. :)

 
> > > What was the real cause of the Psionic Supressions... were the > > > Institutes on
> > > the verge of something?  Something the secret masters weren't > > >ready to allow.

> |   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |

Peter Newman - whose own Mother once told him he was _born_ paranoid and
who answered "Who told you to say that Mom ?"

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 06:11:41 CST
From: galliand@juno.com (Scott M Galliand)
Subject: Re: History of the Geonee, Part 1 (LONG)

On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 01:19:41 +1100 (EST) Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
writes:
>On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Douglas E. Berry wrote:
>
>> At 08:40 PM 3/27/97 +1100, you wrote:
>> >On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Carlos Alos-Ferrer wrote:
>> >
>> >Incorrect (i think, depending on your definition) The solomani had 
>a
>> >"community" when they meet the vilani, and i assume the zhodani 
>were in a
>> >similiar situation.
>> >
>> 
>> I beleive that Carlos is refeering to Massila Sector.  The Geonee 
>indeed
>> were the only human race "native" to that area to have FTL travel 
>(even if
>> they got it from Ancient artifacts.)
>
>Fair Enougth
>
>> 
>> The Solomani met the Vilani on their *first* interstellar jump. so 
>you
>> really can't say that they had an interstellar community.  as for 
>the
>> Zhodani, I'm unaware of any canonical source indicating that they 
>even knew
>> of each other's existance, let alone met.
>
>Hmmm, would'nt the term 'interstellar' include the Colonies earth had
>within the Sol system?

But you are assuming that the Vilani met the Geonee and the Solomani at
roughly about the same time.  You should look at Carlos' timeline on my
site.  If I remember from that and Carlos' recent article, the Vilani
meet the Geonee around -8700 Imperial or thereabout.  At that time, the
Solomani haven't even invented writing to record history yet (although I
could be wrong).  I don't think we even had civilization yet.  By the
time the Geonee are incorporated in the Ziru Sirka forcibly and the
Vilani stop expansion, Terrans have barely discovered civilization.  By
the time the Terrans visit Barnard's Star in the late 21st century Terran
(in the  -2600s Imperial, if I remember correctly.  I don't have my books
onhand), The Geonee have been members of the Ziru Sirka for almost 2000
years.

So the term interstellar WOULD include Terra and the colonies, but not
for almost 7 millenia after the first meeting of the Geonee and the
Vilani.

Carlos, please correct me if I'm wrong.

BTW, you can see Carlos' timeline in the Geonee Online Sourcebook at 

http://members.aol.com/sgalli5794/traveller/geonee/

Scott Galliand
Archivist, Geonee Online Sourcebook

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 13:32:10 +0000
From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Specific heat capacity (from TML)

Dear Nicolas,

The term you are looking for is "specific heat capacity", I believe,
which is defined either at constant volume or constant pressure.
Since you're an engineer, you might recognise it as C_p or C_V,
i.e. dH/dT at constant pressure p or dU/dT at constant volume V.

It can be shown that for an ideal gas, C_V = 3/2 R and C_p = C_V + R, 
so C_p = 5/2 R.  Here R is the gas constant; R = 8.314 kJ /mol /K
These are *molar* heat capacities; 1 mol of an ideal gas takes up 
22.4 litres at 273K and 24 litres at 298K, both for 1 atmosphere 
pressure. (Molar volume of ideal gas V_m = RT/p.)

Given an appropriate relative molar mass, we can calculate C.
M_r for H2 is 2 g /mol (OK, 2.016 or so), and for air roughly 29 g 
/mol.

H2: C_p = 5/2 * 8.314 J /mol /K  * (1 / 2 g /mol)
        = 10 J /g /K
    C_V = 6 J /g /K

Air: C_p = 0.67 J /g /K
    C_V = 0.4 J /g /K

These are not dissimilar to Rob Flammang's values (which are probably 
measurements, and correct) so the method is OK, and generalises.

Please note that in H2 gas below 80K and (I'm morally certain) in 
liquid H2 as well, there are quantum effects which reduce the heat 
capacity below the expected value. (It's to do with ortho and para 
hydrogen not interconverting very quickly, since you ask.)




Nick Munn, University of Sheffield, Department of Information Studies
         (was nsm14@cus.cam.ac.uk, now N.S.Munn@shef.ac.uk)
        Phone (0)114 222 2673 [work], (0)114 279 7459 [home]

     Scientist * Philosopher * Freelance Theologian * MBTI INTJ

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 13:40:26 +0000
From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Black globes

> From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
> 
> [Me:]
> 
> > ObTrav: How is it that Imperial technology can build black globes 
> > (CT/MT anyway) but can't rig an off-switch to turn off the field when 
> > the capacitors are nearly full?
> 
> Simple. What happens when you only have X joules of capacity left, but
> get hit by something with an energy of 2X? :-)
> 
> *You* have to decide *before it hits* whether the next shot will kick
> you over the limit or not. No way a switch can do that for you.

What, not even if it's been recording the amount of energy per hit? 
If the cutoff is set to the highest energy received so far, or an 
(educated) estimate of the most energetic hit possible, then surely 
that would save some globe failures. And it could be over-ridden, 
of course.

"He must have made a bad tactical decision -- the capacitors just 
blew." 

Nick

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 14:03:32 +0000
From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Anti-BD grenades

> From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
> 
> [Me:]
> 
> > Leonard Erickson writes:

[Na/K grenade]

> > Nasty! But actually, won't the BD point-defence laser punch a hole in 
> > it? I assume in normal operation the thermal charge turns the metal 
> > into vapour, and the grenade bursts when the internal pressure 
> > becomes high.  A hole would mean a single stream of metal vapour, 
> > which would rapidly cool into small droplets anyway.
> 
> No, it emits a steady stream of vapor in lots of directions through
> lots of holes. Or perhaps it just emits a burst of vapor (it take some
> tests to find out which works best).
> 
> But what makes you think the vapour would cool into drops? Sure, it'll
> eventually condense, but in a vacuum, the vapor cover cover a *lot* of
> distance before running into anything.

Alkali metals have very low heat capacities, and so will cool after 
only a few collisions, forming small clusters of metal. Mind you, 
they're quite shiny (in vacuum) so they won't radiate heat quickly,
and might last long enough to splatter-plate BD. My guess is that at 
thermal energies almost every collision will lead to a cluster.


> It's unlikely to react much with the suit. Sodium *is* reactive, but
> most suit materials aren't terribly reactive. However, now that you
> mention it, I recall that hot akali metals *do* react with
> fluorocarbons (they replace the *carbon*, NOTHING will replace the
> fluorine!) 
>
> So fluorocarbons would become carbon plus KF/NaF. But the actual heat
> energy of the atoms impacting the suit would be low. So most likely
> result is just "plating".

Hmm. I suspect that even at very low temperatures you'd get a lot of 
electron transfer from Na to F, weakening the surface layers of C-F 
bonds, and then some reaction with the subsurface. You could get a 
nice layer of sodium fluoride insulator over your suit.


> > Only real problem is that even if you win, you have a heck of a time 
> > cleaning up your ship, what with alkali metal painted all up the 
> > walls (and probably not doing them a power of good either).  The best 
> > thing to do would be to dissolve the stuff in absolutely dry 
> > ethanol, but shipboard all that's going to be available is water.
>
> Actually just repressurize with water vapor, wait an hour or two for
> the shine to go away, and add nitrogen. Then hose down the walls while
> wearing suits. The (dilute!) hydroxide solution can easily be handled
> by the reclamation system.

Not sure how practical repressurising with water vapour is, in terms 
of ship's lifesupport systems. Your main problem is the H2 gas, which 
gets everywhere. Adding N2 will prevent explosive mixing of air and 
H2 (well, maybe... you might want to try and vent the lot) but the H2 
will get everywhere -- into the walls of the room, etc.. 250g of Na 
would provide 130-odd litres of H2 gas, which is not a lot but hardly 
trivial.
Nick Munn, University of Sheffield, Department of Information Studies
         (was nsm14@cus.cam.ac.uk, now N.S.Munn@shef.ac.uk)
        Phone (0)114 222 2673 [work], (0)114 279 7459 [home]

     Scientist * Philosopher * Freelance Theologian * MBTI INTJ

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1111
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Thursday, March 27 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1112



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

AUCTION UPDATE
Templars
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1106
Sociology 101 on #traveller
Re: Darrians & Templars & Zhodani Oh My ! 
Re: Templars
Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...
Re: History of the Geonee, Part 1 (LONG)
Re: Poor Craig Berry
Re: Templars
RE: The True History of Hiver manipulations of the K'kree
Re: Templars
Na/K grenade
Re: Templars
Re:  psionics and genetics

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 08:22:23 -0600
From: Paul Walker <tiger@goldinc.com>
Subject: AUCTION UPDATE

Well, since all of the auction info and data is here at work and I'm off
work tomorrow, I figured I'd better do the weekend update now.  I've been
asked about the postage by a number of people so I did a little (very
little) research and cam up with a guideline.  Remember this is JUST A
GUIDELINE!!

1.  All prices are considered to include postage to the continental USA.

     MORE INFO ON POSTAGE:
          US POSTAGE:  Parcel Post will be used for all shipping of one item.
                       Priority Mail will be used for more than 1 item.
                       For Priority Mail for single item orders, add $1.00.
                       For Express Mail (Second Day to Post Office) add $10.00.
          CANADA:  Canada postage is Standard Letter Rate (Add $1.00 per item)
          OTHER:  Postage is not included and will be approximately
                   $5.00 for the first item and $2.00 per item after the first.

For more than 5 items, postage will be figured more precisely.
Other postage options will be considered and possibly used at the bidders
decision.


Any item that received more than one bid for the same amount, I put all
bidders at the highest amount down.  Please check and see that you bid is
right, and if you haven't bid yet, check to see what you need to fill out
your collection.  Also, I will be sending responses to everyone who places a
bid.  If you don't get a respose in a day or two (or by Tuesday for weekend
bids), you might want to resend the bid.

OK, now on to the items for sale:


CLASSIC TRAVELLER

Book 6: Scouts     GDW 1983     Mid Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $5.00  -  JD TWolf
      $5.00  -  Teflonkid

Adv 2:  Research Station Gamma     GDW 1980     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $5.00  -  Teflonkid

Adv 3:  Twilight's Peak     GDW 1980     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid: $10.00  -  Keith Salakar

Fifty Starbases     Judges Guild 1981     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid: $10.00  -  Keith Salakar


MEGATRAVELLER

Boxed Set (with 9-1-90 errata)     GDW 1987     Min Bid: $15.00
    Includes:  Players' Manual; Referee's Manual; Imperial
                   Encyclopedia; and Spinward Marches Map
Bid: $17.00  -  Jeff Harvey

Rebellion Sourcebook     GDW 1988     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $5.00  -  Steven Hudson

Referee's Companion     GDW 1988     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $6.00  -  Jeff Brawley

Hard Times     GDW 1991     Min Bid: $8.00
Bid:  $8.00  -  Steven Hudson

Starship Operator's Manual     DGP 1988     Min Bid: $12.00
Bid: $14.00  -  Ryan Dooley

Vilani & Vargr     DGP 1990     Min Bid: $15.00
Bid: $16.00  -  Ryan Dooley
     $16.00  -  Solomani

MegaTraveller Journal #4     DGP 1993     Min Bid: $5.00
     (Lords of Thunder, K'kree Issue)
Bid: $10.00  -  Lewis Roberts

Arrival Vengeance     GDW 1992     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $7.00  -  Brian A. Howard


TRAVELLER: THE NEW ERA

Survival Margin     GDW 1993     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $6.00  -  Solomani

Main Rulebook (Mark 1, Mod 1, Dec 93)     GDW 1993     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $5.00  -  Lewis Roberts

Brilliant Lances     GDW 1993     Min Bid: $10.00
Bid: $11.00  -  Jeff Harvey
     $11.00  -  Ron Dawson

Fire, Fusion, & Steel (Mk 1, Mod 1, Jan 94)     GDW 1993     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $8.00  -  KevinC

Smash & Grab     GDW 1994     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  NO BID

Referee's Screen (W/ Lady Elise)     GDW 1994     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  NO BID

Battle Rider     GDW 1993     Min Bid: $10.00
Bid: $11.00  -  Jeff Harvey
     $11.00  -  Ron Dawson

Path of Tears     GDW 1993(?)     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $5.00  -  Steven Hudson

Reformation Coalition Equipment Guide    GDW 1994     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $7.00  -  Jeff Harvey

World Tamer's Handbook     GDW 1994    Min Bid: $10.00
Bid: $11.00  -  Jeff Brawley

Vampire Fleets     GDW 1995     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $7.00  -  Idiot/Savant

Striker II      GDW 1994    Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $5.00  -  Steven Hudson
      $5.00  -  KevinC

Regency Sourcebook     GDW 1995     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $5.00  -  Jeff Harvey
      $5.00  -  Steven Hudson
      $5.00  -  Ron Dawson

Star Vikings     GDW 1994     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $5.00  -  Steven Hudson

Hiver & Ithklur     GDW 1995     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $6.00  -  Solomani

Regency Combat Vehicle Guide     GDW 1995     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $5.00  -  Jeff Harvey
      $5.00  -  Ron Dawson
      $5.00  -  Kenneth Bearden

The Guilded Lilly     GDW 1995     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $5.00  -  Kenneth Bearden
      $5.00  -  Steven Hudson


MARK MILLER'S TRAVELLER

Hardbound Rulebook (Signed)     Imperium Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $5.00  -  Steven Hudson
      $5.00  -  TeflonKid

Starships     Imperium Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $5.00  -  Jeff Harvey
      $5.00  -  TeflonKid

Central Supply Catalog     Imperuim Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $7.00  -  KevinC

Aliens Archive     Imperium Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $6.00  -  Solomani

Mileau 0     Imperium Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $5.00  -  Steven Hudson
      $5.00  -  JD Twolf
      $5.00  -  John MacPherson
      $5.00  -  TeflonKid

First Survey     Imperium Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $5.00  -  Steven Hudson
      $5.00  -  JD TWolf
      $5.00  -  TeflonKid

JTAS 25     Imperium Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $5.00  -  TeflonKid


RULES

2.  Nothing will be shipped until I get a check.  Sorry, but I've been a
sucker one to many times already in this life.

3.  Bids for all items will be posted twice weekly.

4.  After the final posting, any additional bids will be directly hashed out
by me between all remaining bidders.

5.  All bids MUST be in whole dollar increments, and payment must be in US
Dollars.

6.  SPECIAL BONUS!!! The Buyer with the highest total price will get free
50Cr of Imperial Currency imprinted with Strephon's empression. (In 10Cr slips).

7.  Only bid if you intend to buy.

    Paul {tiger}
     tiger@goldinc.com
     http://www.goldinc.com/~tiger

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 97 11:51:23 -0500
From: Lewis Roberts <lewis@chara.gsu.edu>
Subject: Templars

All this Templar stuff is great.

Is anyone going to write it all down in one place?

Lewis Roberts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Q:Why does a cow wear a bell?
A:Because its horns don't work.

lewis@chara.gsu.edu
http://www.chara.gsu.edu/~lewis/roberts.html
- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 09:52:38 -0700
From: Eric Holmes <holmes_eric_t@lanl.gov>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1106

On: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 15:22:11 +1100 (EST)
Michael Barry <mbarry@pcug.org.au>
Subject: Orbital reentry
Wrote:


<<A cry for help from the TML: 
Does anybody know what is the *minimum possible* size of a vehicle 
capable of orbital re-entry? I am thinking of the CT concept of the 
spacesuit 'reentry kit' complete with can of 'ablative foam' that allows 
a vacc suited person to survive reentry on a 7+ (+2 per level of Vacc 
suit skill). Ref for this: ? maybe the 'Marooned/Marooned Alone' double 
adventure? 
"...you decided to attempt a re-entry using the suit's foamed ablative 
re-entry package." Double Adventure 4, Marooned/Marooned Alone. 
- - - but it's labelled "Fluoro-Gel Hair Mousse" NOOOOOOO! <crisping/burning 
noises>

I guess the real question is: is a "foamed ablative re-entry package" 
possible, or would you need a one-person reentry vehicle a la Apollo 
missions? And how small could such a vehicle be? >>

Let a frmr "Conehead" help you.  The Mark 12 re-entry vehicle
of the Minuteman III ICBM is roughly "man-sized", able
to perform minor inertial guidance manuvers and weighs
about a tonne with its telemetry.  The ablative material
is a combination of foam and teflon.  The Mark 5
re-entry vehicle for the Titan missile was about five
times the size of the Mark 12.  The abaltive foam
system you speak of, was described in the early sixties
predating the Apollo program and was not truly instituted
TTBOMK.  I've used "systems" akin to the Mark 12/Mark 5 in
describing "drop capsules" for my Shipboard Marines.  They
weigh close to 2 tonnes.

Eric


              ~~~~~
             (-0^0-)
- ---------oOOo--( )--oOOo---------

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 12:23:00 -0500
From: Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org>
Subject: Sociology 101 on #traveller

Greetings.

Just a freindly reminder that the Imperial Online University will be having 
Sociology 101 (aka SOC-ONE) tonight at 8:30pm EST.  Your Professor this 
evening is none other than Count Commander Prof. Emeritus. 'X'

Although the Commanders main expertise is in Shipbuilding and Engineering, 
he has agreed under the request of Z. Roze Cardell (Suz Dollar) to do a 
discussion of sociology.

The Commander has only a basic outline, based mainly on the last 4 digits of 
the IISS UPP plus the starport type:

Population
Government
Law Level
Technology Level
Starport type will be also factored in as an indication of outworld trade 
and contact.

There will be some examples of 'how would you interpret "X" society with 
this UPP.  Here are 3 examples I will use to start you thinking.

A646A30-F Scout & Naval Bases
B500312-C
D667679-1 Scout Base

Hope to see you there!
From the Commander at the office
(Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!)

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 09:59:01 -0800
From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Re: Darrians & Templars & Zhodani Oh My ! 

>From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>

[deletion]

>       Was the failure of the secret Imperial psychohistory project that
>attempted to turn public opinion against psionics and failed when it
>worked _too_ well really a failure, or was it part of a SORAG plot ? 

I've always assumed so; surely the Zhodani don't want the 
largest interstellar empire around to be developing anything 
that would remove the Zhodani's only edge.

>Was stopping development of this area part of the secret Zhodani peace
>conference agendas during the Frontier Wars ? 

Most likely -- I hadn't considered this angle before, but it 
makes sense.  Isn't there a psionics institute on Wypoc or 
Yori or somewhere near the border?  Hmmm.

>Is it really a coincidence that Archduke of the Domain of Deneb Norris 
>Aella Aledon had a psionic 'seneschal' (I believe the phrase I'm 
>really looking for is longtime companion) ? 

The psionic seneschal angle arises in Survival Margin; it's an 
interesting developement.  He was probably a Zhodani 
political officer assigned to maintain Norris' stability.  
The seneschal is somewhat analogous to the mentat from Dune (and doesn't 
have any connotations of longtime companionship).  He serves 
as an information filter, digesting the huge volumes of information 
that come to the ducal office and presenting it in useable form 
to the Duke.

- --Glenn

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 11:31:55 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Templars

I've been collecting the meatier posts into a large unedited file..at some
point I may organize it. (Emphasis MAY) I'm currently working on a rather
unique minor race, related to the earlier stuff regarding orbital habitats
and such. ;-) Maybe this weekend, though I've got a zillion other projects
planned.

     Maybe one of the several people doing the larger amount of
speculation can do it (if we can TRUST them, that is...since the word
'fnord' keeps popping up any or all may be one of them ;-)

     It would be a nice addition to the output of the list, guys.

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs


On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, Lewis Roberts wrote:

> All this Templar stuff is great.
> 
> Is anyone going to write it all down in one place?
> 
> Lewis Roberts

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 11:02:55 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...

At 10:17 PM 3/25/97 +0000, you wrote:
>Doctor Vince wrote:
>> IIRC isn't the muzzle velocity on a 7.62 NATO slug somewhere in the
>> 1500 m/s range?
>
>A little closer to 900m/sec
>

It varies from weapon to weapon, but from the FN FAL it is 823 m/s.

As a point of reference, a 5.56x45mm fired from a M16A1 has a muzzle
velocity of 1000 m/s.

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   in clown outfits.    -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 11:02:58 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: History of the Geonee, Part 1 (LONG)

At 01:19 AM 3/28/97 +1100, you wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Douglas E. Berry wrote:

>> The Solomani met the Vilani on their *first* interstellar jump. so you
>> really can't say that they had an interstellar community.  as for the
>> Zhodani, I'm unaware of any canonical source indicating that they even knew
>> of each other's existance, let alone met.
>
>Hmmm, would'nt the term 'interstellar' include the Colonies earth had
>within the Sol system?

That would be "interplanetary."  Interstellar means "between the stars."

>Also, technically, this is correct, the Terrans meet the Vilani on there
>first jump, but they meet Vilani Miners, no official contact.  Official
>contact occured sometime after this first jump and the first interstellar
>war.

Contact is contact.  That UN crew must have had a series of shocks.. first
the meet aliens, then the aliens turn out to be human, then they find out
how large the Zir Sirka is!

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   in clown outfits.    -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 11:03:02 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Poor Craig Berry

At 06:21 PM 3/26/97 -0800, Glenn wrote:


>A mind is a terrible thing to waste.  The unfortunate Mr. Berry has
obviously joined the 
>ranks of occult investigators who have gone insane.

No, he's always been like this.  Trust me, I've played in his Chivalry and
Sorcery games..

  His paranoia can be charted ahead 
>with some precision.  Soon he'll be seeing perverse geometries in Keith
Brothers' art, 
>drawing allusions between obscure Contact! races and obscure Mythos
minions, and 
>accusing me of being a pawn, or worse, of the unholy Elder Gods.

Sounds pretty normal for this list...

>He has good company in his madness, to be sure, but still, we'll miss his
presence on 
>the TML.  He often had good things to say.  We'll still see postings with
his signature, 
>of course, but we all know that they won't be from him.  They'll be from
whatever his 
>cracked mind has become.  He may even be lucid from time to time.  Who knows.

Craig.  Lucid.  Riigghhttt...  You've never had him try to explain his
attempts to write perl scripts for thelemic (sp) magik, have you..

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   in clown outfits.    -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 11:27:17 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Templars

At 11:51 AM 3/27/97 -0500, Lewis Roberts wrote:
>All this Templar stuff is great.
>
>Is anyone going to write it all down in one place?

I'm working up a timeline for the illuminated Traveller universe, I'll put
it up on my web page when i'm done.

On that note, I need to find out when the Hivers got the jump drive..
anybody with Alien Module 7 help me out?

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   in clown outfits.    -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 97 20:11 GMT0
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: RE: The True History of Hiver manipulations of the K'kree

In-Reply-To: <01BC3969.42B356D0@p113.autobahn.mb.ca>

>  Ahh, you poor, ignorant soul. My collection of all 7 Alien Modules are 
> like children to me- they are simply that useful.

Actually, there are 8...

>  Oh, despite their names, the Hivers do not live in hives, and are not at 
> all what that name might imply (bringing to mind bees and other mindless 
> insects).

ISTR they were originally going to be insects. Marc?

> Also, the Hivers are completly, 100% non-spionic. They can 
> neither learn psionics, nor be affected by psionic powers.

They can be affected (maybe not tp).

> p.s. did anyone pick up on the name of the Hiver doing the lecture?

Yep :-)

    ---------=========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, 27 Mar 1997 11:52:20 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Templars

At 11:30 PM 3/26/97 -0800, Craig wrote:

>You know, the more I think about it, the more Five Sisters looks like a
>big magnet, pulling in every culture in this part of the galaxy.  A bunch
>of Solomani went *way* out of their way to colonize next door, when their
>must have been a gazillion worlds closer to home; the Darrians grew up
>next door, and of course rocketed up the TLs until that tragic 'accident'; 
>the 3I and Zhos pushed for the Marches as fast as they could get there; 
>hell, a bunch of Solomani got within a few dozen parsecs using *slower
>than light travel from Earth!* (see the Islands Cluster).  Then Aslan
>ihatei start spilling into this very region from rimward, despite the
>difficulties of crossing the Great Rift.  What *is* it about the
>rim-wpinward corner of the Marches that makes everyone want to go there,
>hmmmm? 

We've been assuming the existence of a known space spanning telepathic
"net", yes?  Perhaps the broadcast machine is on Andor or Candory.  Perhaps
the emissions cause a subtle attraction in sentient races.  It might even be
behind the desire to go to the stars!

We could just be moths, flying towards the Ancients flame.  This is why the
Templars have tried to supress the open use of psionics, they know we'll get
burned (more about this below.)

>> Take a look at Five Sisters.. Andor and Candory are ringed by Imperial Navy
>> bases sitting on Amber Zone worlds.  In fact, 8 of the subsector's 27 worlds
>> are Amber!  What is so dangerous to earn these levels of Naval staffing and
>> travel codes.. Not even the Sword Worlds or the Zhodani Consulate itself
>> rates this kind of attention.  (There are seven Navy bases in Five Sisters,
>> compared to *two* in Jewell, and Jewell faces a far more obvious threat.

>And I'd lay odds on a covert military presence on most of the other worlds
>within J6 of Andor/Candory.

Well, there is Research Station Zeta on Froin/Five Sisters (0539); it's only
Jump 4 from the two Droyne worlds.

>> Grandfather isn't a major player anymore.. IMTU (In My Traveller Universe)
>> Virus was a Mule.. a singular event that caught the shadow organizations by
>> surprise.  Note however that the Domain of Deneb, including the Darrians,
>> Sword Worlds, and Five Sisters subsector survived almost intact.
>
>Yeah, not Grandpa's fault, but our Friends of Yadroskay do pretty well by
>themselves in keeping Virus away.  One wonders if Granddad didn't do a
>little covert vampire removal work to help out, before the Regency got its
>defenses in order.

Or maybe the Templars gave Norris' seneschal/long time companion an advance
warning over the network?  Being the aide and lover of a powerful Duke,
later Archduke would be just the thing that the Templars would aspire to,
especially in the Spinward Marches.

>> Since Grandfather's network is either TL25+ or telepathic in nature, I doubt
>> that the Hivers are even aware that it exists.  As Craig suggested, the
>> Psionic supressions may have been a Templar action to keep the mass of
>> humanity from being able to access the Network.
>
>That part is looking more and more solid to me.  The interesting question
>now is whether they did it at Grandfather's behest (knowingly or
>unknowingly) or simply to reserve it for themselves.
>
>> Which make you wonder.. have the Zhodani accesses the Net, and could that be
>> the cause of the social breakdown we're seeing in the early 1200s?
>
>Absolutely, positively.  And (as I mentioned in another post), the
>Templars have been in direct zero-transit-time contact with Zhodani psi
>researchers since around year 0 -- so the Templars find out about the
>whole Empress Wave mess before *anyone* else in the 3I does.

As I think about the Psionic Supressions/Zhodani reluctance to advance
closer to the Droyne worlds/Network; I've come to believe that the Network
is an iherently dangerous thing.  Hook up 100 human telepaths, and 99 of
them will die screaming, while the other will spend the rest of days
screaming at the walls.  1 in a 1000 may be able to use it, but that
individual will get *weird*.

My reason for this belief is that the Network was designed for the 421
super-intellegent ancients (Grandfather and the kids and grandkids.)  The
human (or Vargr or Aslan) brain isn't capable of handling the overload of
information, or the alien thought processes that it's carried in.  I'd
imagine that even modern Droyne would have difficulty using the net.

>> The existence of the Templars should be considered a myth, on par with the
>> belief that Hitler is alive and well in the secret Nazi base in Antartica.
>> Only considerable digging will reveal that something is going on.
>
>Yes, the existence of the 'inner order' will be like this.  Equivalent to
>the "Freemasons run the world" line of conspiracy theories; everyone knows
>the Masons *exist*, just most people view them as balding businessmen who
>occasionally wear funny hats, rather than an elite force of secret
>masters.  My view of the Templars has secret masters hiding behind the
>balding sophonts in funny hats. :)

The image of a convention of Vargr Shriners in Las Vegas.. the only city in
human space that matches their tastes...

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   in clown outfits.    -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 15:25:38 -0600 (CST)
From: Jeff Brawley <brawleyj@UWSTOUT.EDU>
Subject: Na/K grenade

Whoever,

The person that brought up this Na/K grenade is truly devious.  If you read
this would you please repost that description.  Or please send that snipped
piece of artwork on anti-BD to me.  I'd really appreciate it.

em:     brawleyj@uwstout.edu

thanks in advance,

Jeff Brawley

> Leonard Erickson writes:
>
>[Na/K grenade]
>
>> > Nasty! But actually, won't the BD point-defence laser punch a hole in 
>> > it? I assume in normal operation the thermal charge turns the metal 
>> > into vapour, and the grenade bursts when the internal pressure 
>> > becomes high.  A hole would mean a single stream of metal vapour, 
>> > which would rapidly cool into small droplets anyway.
>
>Alkali metals have very low heat capacities, and so will cool after 
>only a few collisions, forming small clusters of metal. Mind you, 
>they're quite shiny (in vacuum) so they won't radiate heat quickly,
>and might last long enough to splatter-plate BD. My guess is that at 
>thermal energies almost every collision will lead to a cluster.

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 16:25:15 -0600 (CST)
From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com>
Subject: Re: Templars

Quoth Douglas E. Berry:
> On that note, I need to find out when the Hivers got the jump drive..
> anybody with Alien Module 7 help me out?

- -4698, though it was an inferior J-1 variant that melted to slag after no
more than ten uses.  They developed "standard" J-1 in -4212.

- ----------------------------*------------------------*------------------------
 Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett  |"Nullum magnum ingenium | GURPS fan, Amiga user,
http://www.io.com/~jlockett | sine mixtura dementiae | Shakespearean scholar,
  Email: jlockett@io.com    | fuit." -- Seneca       | actor and director.

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 18:35:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Re:  psionics and genetics

In a message dated 97-03-27 00:27:00 EST,  Glenn writes:

>Do we have any evidence that psionics are linked to genetics in any way?  I
>don't think so -- especially in light of 8,000 years of Zhodani culture, in
which testing
>for psionics can be an entree into the ruling class for proles.  

I imagine a there is no "psionic gene" just as there is no gene for long
legs. Perhaps a group of recessives or a rare dominant. (I believe that I
read that the genes for six fingers is a dominant, just rare.)  So a test for
psionics would be a test for expressed genes, not just the prescence of the
gene.
Somebody help me out here, all my genetic texts are still packed, i  just
moved).
dsf

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1112
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Friday, March 28 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1113



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Poor Craig Berry
Re: Mindwipe 
Re: Cloning
IRC Down?
Re: Templars
closed systems
Re: beyond the rim?
Re: Rabbit Hunting
Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)
Re: 
GK GK GK GK ---  SOS SOS SOS 
Re: Traveller Weirdness Part Deux Mark II
Detecting stars, etc
Re: off topic
Re: Templars
Re: Whats in a name?
Re: off topic
Re: Templars
Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...
Re: Templars
"Known" sectors
Re: Anti-BD grenades
Spacecombat assumptions
Re: Poor Craig Berry

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 18:43:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Re: Poor Craig Berry

Craig Berry has always been insane, I doubt we will notice any difference.
dsf

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 18:40:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Re: Mindwipe 

Does anyone remember the really awful T.V. pilot about 15 years ago centering
around a CIA agent whose brain was wiped by the KGB? The re-programmed his
mind every episode to make him the "perfect" spy.

The KGB did it chemically, and I believe the reviews said the science was
sound, just expensive. 
dsf

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 00:08:23 +0000
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Cloning

Bruce Johnson wrote: <<Good question...this was never clearly elucidated,
at least in the
sources I have (I'm missing the 'Arrival Vengeance' adventure which
apparently has some things about what Strephon was doing out there so far
from core, just what the heck Longbow was, and why they were doing it, and
maybe some stuff about his 'doubles')>>

Arrival Vengeance doesn't really go into a lot of detail about above.
However, it would be a good scenario for the troupe play from Ars Magica
that someone mentioned a while ago. It is an adventure tinged with sadness
and regret, preceding the final death blow to the 3I. However, the Regency
Sourcebook does supply much of what you are looking for- Longbow is a very
sophisticated  observation system (IIRC, it also involved psionics, or was
that Longbow II?). Between AV, the Regency Sourcebook and MT you can get
most of the details.

Me? I want to know what the Empress Wave was, and what was behind the Black
Curtain! (and me a pre-Collapse ref!)

    -Dom Mooney- dom@cybergoths.u-net.com
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
"But everything is still the same; passing the time, passing the blame.
We carry on in the same old way, we'll find out we left it too late one day,
 to say what we meant to say." - Marillion
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 20:14:42 -0600 (CST)
From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com>
Subject: IRC Down?

I've been trying to connect to (www.)imperiumgames.com:6665/6 for a half
hour now, and can't seem to find any combination of server or port number
that works.  Is the machine down?  Is Cmdr. X still doing his seminar?
Agh!

- ----------------------------*------------------------*------------------------
 Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett  |"Nullum magnum ingenium | GURPS fan, Amiga user,
http://www.io.com/~jlockett | sine mixtura dementiae | Shakespearean scholar,
  Email: jlockett@io.com    | fuit." -- Seneca       | actor and director.

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 19:11:20 -0800
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: Templars

At 11:51 AM 3/27/97 -0500, Lewis Roberts wrote:
>All this Templar stuff is great.
>
>Is anyone going to write it all down in one place?

What, are you joking?  How foolish do you think we are?  Yeeg, just for
seeing such a question asked I better start Taking Measures.  First thing
to do I guess is to round off all the corners in my room and install a good
pendulum...


Oh:  :-)   
I hope someone records it all and releases it through IG and makes scads of
money. :-)
- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 19:28:20 -0800
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: closed systems

I've got a question on closed systems, somewhat of a recap of what we
discussed a while back.  

Does anyone know how much of a closed system modern subs are, for example,
and for how long?  How efficiently do they recycle water, and what do they
do with all their waste from grease to feces -- do they just _dump_ it in
the deep???  Do subs grow any food at all, or is it all prepackaged?

Any info like this would be a big help.  Thanks.

- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 23:49:12 +0000
From: Mused <marz@HotStar.net>
Subject: Re: beyond the rim?

Glenn M. Goffin, Esq. wrote:
> 
> From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
> >Whats beyond the outer empire?  For instance whats beyond the furthest
> reaches of the hiver federation? or Solomani Confederation?  or is this
> just a blank slate?
> 
> I think that these are regions reserved (for now) for referee development.  So if you
> want "boldly to go where no sophonts from known space have gone before" (precise writing
> is often not grand, I'm afraid), you have to (or get to) create it yourself.

Michael Stracynski (sp?) (creator of B5) says that there is a massive Taco Bell out there

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 23:56:46 +0000
From: Mused <marz@HotStar.net>
Subject: Re: Rabbit Hunting

Bob Sanders, jarhead, writes:

>  I must agree. It must be that fine US Army training ;-> that allows
>  such UN-disciplined firing.

This the same US army that came to a a Canadian Forces base and offerd to "lose his 
M-16" in exchange for one of our headdresses (which, incidentally is a green beret)

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 97 22:15:54 -0600
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)

On 03/27/97 at 09:24 AM,  anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman) said:

> >Why, thank you Anders!  Hail to you too. ;->
> >
> >
> >Eris,
> >    yes it's my *real* name

> Actually, the fact that your name is Eris was a coincidence. I was
> referring to the Illuminatus greeting in reference to the Fnord in the
> header.

Fnord, I knew that Anders, Fnord, but you didn't have to, Fnord, let the
un-illuminated know, Fnord, that did you? <wink, wink>

> Is that synchronocity or what?

Yeah, but don't tell anybody!


Eris,
    yes it's *still* my real name <g>

- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 22:15:07 -0900
From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
Subject: Re: 

> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 01:47:17 -0900
> From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
> Subject: Re: Traveller Weirness Part Deux

[Ship of _very_ long message]

I'm sorry I accidently sent this very long message to the list. I meant
to send it to myself & apparently hit the wrong button, sorry.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 00:19:17 -0800
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.com>
Subject: GK GK GK GK ---  SOS SOS SOS 

While conducting some exploration in the uncharted wastes of Usenet, 
I received the following distress signal addressed to mpgn.com.  I 
hope that someone on the TML can help our fellow traveller.

______________________________________________________________


Reading...Wed, 19 Mar 1997 14:11:38      rec.games.frp.misc           Thread   93 of  
170
Lines 13  Problems with the Traveller Mailing ListNo responses
pmiller@linkeasy.net                     Peter J. Miller at iSTAR Internet Inc.

Hi,

For the past few weeks, I'd being having trouble sending 
to the TML, and decided to, last week, unsubscribe and then 
resubscribe to see if that would correct the problem.

Now,  when I try to resusbscirbe, I can't get on.  If 
soemone could help me, I'd appreciate it.  I've been on 
the list for about a year, and am an irregular poster, 
and I want to get on.

I've tried e-mail Rob Miracle, but he never replied.

Thanks,

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 97 05:50:09 -0400
From: FKiesche@concentric.net
Subject: Re: Traveller Weirdness Part Deux Mark II

Greetings:

Why were all these messages duplicated without a accompanying note? Talk 
about Traveller Weirdness Part Deux!

>Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 01:47:17 -0900
>From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
>Subject: Re: Traveller Weirness Part Deux
>
>Traveller-digest wrote:
>> 
>> Traveller-digest     Wednesday, March 26 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1109
>
>> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 20:18:31 +0000
>> From: Mused <marz@HotStar.net>
>> Subject: Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)
>> 
>> Glenn M. Goffin, Esq. wrote:
>> >
>> > From: David Elrick <David.Elrick@ps.co.uk>
>> > >More interestingly, why were the Darrians never able to build another
>> > working Star Trigger (having apparently built one and set it off)?
>> > >What are the Darrians *really* hiding about the Star Trigger?


Frederick Paul Kiesche III
(FKiesche@concentric.net)
(Traveller since 1977!)
(Knight of the Third Imperium--Strephon Himself did it to me!)

"Travel in the company of this Ebokin delegation will be, to say the 
least, trying. Like most of her kind, the Fifth Speaker to the Lawless is 
a petulant, self-centered, and demanding individual."

- --The Traveller Adventure, GDW, 1983

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 00:29:51 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Detecting stars, etc

As I recall it was a month or two back that we had a bit of an argument
about how far away you can detect stars (well enough for jumps) with
standard ship's sensors.  While digging through the CT alien modules I
found an "official" answer.

In the Zhodani module they have a system for running characters thru an
area that hasn't been mapped yet (the idea being that they've stolen a
ship in Zhodani space and they are trying to get home). And the thing
is, it's randomly placing stars in such a way that it's clear that you
can detect stars AND GAS GIANTS at 3 parsecs. The gas giant detection
isn't perfect, but but the star detection is ok.

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

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 23:58:49 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: off topic

In mail you write:

>         To the person who posted Powell's web address on the list: You are
> an evil Zhodani mindmessing fifth columnist pinko commie traitor to the
> Imperium!  ;-) 
>
>         I did NOT need such easy access to the biggest and best used
> bookstore in the world!!!
>
>         Some things are better left unknown!
>
> Bruce (Wowza...when did this credit card get so hot???!!!) Johnson

Hey, it's *local*. I just have to hop on a Bus and I get to walk thru
the place! If I wasn't this broke, I'd *still* be this broke. :-)

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

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 23:30:17 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Templars

In mail you write:

> On that note, I need to find out when the Hivers got the jump drive..
> anybody with Alien Module 7 help me out?

Funny you should ask. I just dug out the alien modules for something
else. 

- -4698 Imperial is the date of the first jump to another system. But
*supposedly* this was a drive that melted down after about 10 uses.
They got the standard Jump-1 drive in -4212. So say the histories...
:-) 

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

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 22:55:12 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Whats in a name?

In mail you write:

>    (If you tried to coin a word from "Terra", our homeworld, it would be
>    something like "Terora'i" or "Terirani".  "Sol" would go to "Osoli"
>    or "So'oli" or "Sosoli" or something; I don't really have enough
>    examples to deduce the grammatical rule for such "odd" place names!)

Well, while I know that you are talking about Galanglic grammar, I just
*have* to point out that "Terra" being *Latin*, you use Latin
grammatical rules. This "sort of" gives Terran. I say "sort of" because
if you go by Latin rules for *naming*, the pair should be "Tellus" and
"Tellurian". 

Oh yeah, "Sol" gives "Solarian".

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

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 00:02:00 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: off topic

In mail you write:

> At 09:43 AM 3/26/97 -0700, Bruce Johnson wrote:
>>       To the person who posted Powell's web address on the list: You are
>>an evil Zhodani mindmessing fifth columnist pinko commie traitor to the
>>Imperium!  ;-) 
>>
>>       I did NOT need such easy access to the biggest and best used
>>bookstore in the world!!!
>
> Yeah, I had a similar reaction.  Ahhh, the days when I could spend endless
> hours in the coffee shop or in the Gold Room or the Blue Room or the Purple
> Room... argh.  And now I'm stuck in the Bay Area... but at least I have
> relatives there (heh heh heh).

Like I told Bruce, I have to spread the agony around. I walked in one
day, and spotted a *first edition* of The Hunt for Red October (the
Naval Institute Press edition!) and I couldn't afford it. And of
course, it was gone by the time I had money... Wah!

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

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 23:27:00 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Templars

In mail you write:

> You know, the more I think about it, the more Five Sisters looks like a
> big magnet, pulling in every culture in this part of the galaxy.  A bunch
> of Solomani went *way* out of their way to colonize next door, when their
> must have been a gazillion worlds closer to home; the Darrians grew up
> next door, and of course rocketed up the TLs until that tragic 'accident'; 
> the 3I and Zhos pushed for the Marches as fast as they could get there; 
> hell, a bunch of Solomani got within a few dozen parsecs using *slower
> than light travel from Earth!* (see the Islands Cluster).  Then Aslan
> ihatei start spilling into this very region from rimward, despite the
> difficulties of crossing the Great Rift.  What *is* it about the
> rim-wpinward corner of the Marches that makes everyone want to go there,
> hmmmm? 

Ever wonder why there are *Five* sisters? :-)

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

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 23:05:40 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...

In mail you write:

>> For example, let's assume 5000 m/s, from a 1 meter barrel. 
>
> Isn't 5000 m/s overkill, especially for a 4mm dart? The point is to 
> actually have stopping power, not just drive neat 4mm holes right 
> through the target?

At 5000 m/s, it *won't* "drill holes". The dart will *explode* on
impact, with an energy equal to 2.7 times its weight in TNT. 

Admittedly, that's the *high* end for what I'd consider. There are
varmint rifles with 5000 *feet* per second muzzle velocities. Hit a
crow with a 22 bullet and it turns into a cloud of feathers. A
watermelon becomes several large chunks and a lot of
"watermelon-sauce". 

> IIRC isn't the muzzle velocity on a 7.62 NATO slug somewhere in the 
> 1500 m/s range?

No, that's more in the varmint gun range.

> One of the neat things I just thought of is that a gauss weapon could 
> alter the muzzle velocity of the darts on the fly, boosting it for 
> anti-armor, dropping it for anti-personnel... yuk. 

A "coil gun" could do that, but it'd make a complicated weapon even
more complex. A rail gun *could* but you'd have to have a way to either
change the strength of the magnetic field (not likely for a rifle) or
be able to limit the current (not easy at the level involved).

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

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 23:19:37 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Templars

In mail you write:

> Based both on the historical Templars, and on the way a big conspiracy has
> to operate, I'd lay odds that there's a visible, accessible front
> organization...call it the "Knights of the Temple of Light," nice
> innocuous name, or whatever...that has a public, well-defined mission --
> guarding the spaceways, protecting minor races, heck, running youth soccer
> teams and charity hospitals.  Like, oh, say, just f'rinstance, the Octagon
> Society, to pull in a name at random.

No, no, that's *far* too obscure. You need a group with branches at
most starports, a *strong* news gathering arm (actually a cover for
intel ops), and lots of members who roam around with the organization
supplying funds every so often. And some banking facilities in most
branches as well as a rep for helping people who have been "stranded"
or "wrongly" accused of things by the locals. Of course, 99% of the
group is "cover" for the secret goings on.

Only group like *that* is the Traveller's Aid Society....

> Membership may be severely restricted (by social rank, or recommendation
> requirements, or whatnot), and is considered highly prestigious -- like
> the Masons about 50 years ago.  Most members stop there, using the
> organization as a business club and social arena.  They go through some
> initiations, learn some secret words, get some good solid spiritual
> advice, and there it stops.

Again, Traveller's Aid Society (which is a lot like the old "Explorer's
Club" was, with added traces of the local American Express office or
American/British Embassy) fits the bill very nicely.

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

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 00:07:23 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: "Known" sectors

I've been digging thru such of my Traveller stuff as I've located, and
I came up with the following map of all sectors for which we have "any"
data. I know that there are *names* for these sectors, if nothing else.
It (obviously) doesn't show the Zhodani Core expeditions. "00" is Core,
the rest should be obvious....

+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|5R|5S|5T|5U|5V|5W|5X|5Y|5Z|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|4R|4S|4T|4U|4V|4W|4X|4Y|5Z|40|41|42|  |  |  |  |  |  |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|3R|3S|3T|3U|3V|3W|3X|3Y|3Z|30|31|32|33|34|35|36|37|38|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|2R|2S|2T|2U|2V|2W|2X|2Y|2Z|20|21|22|23|24|25|26|27|28|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|1R|1S|1T|1U|1V|1W|1X|1Y|1Z|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|0R|0S|0T|0U|OV|0W|0X|0Y|0Z|00|01|02|03|04|05|06|07|08|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|  |ZS|ZT|ZU|ZV|ZW|ZX|ZY|ZZ|Z0|Z1|Z2|Z3|Z4|Z5|Z6|Z7|Z8|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|  |YS|YT|YU|YV|YW|YX|YY|YZ|Y0|Y1|Y2|Y3|Y4|Y5|Y6|Y7|Y8|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|  |XS|XT|XU|XV|XW|XX|XY|XZ|X0|X1|X2|X3|X4|X5|X6|X7|  |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|  |WS|WT|WU|WV|WW|WX|WY|WZ|W0|W1|W2|W3|W4|W5|W6|W7|  |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|  |VS|VT|VU|VV|VW|VX|VY|  |  |V1|V2|V3|V4|V5|V6|V7|  |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |U1|U2|U3|  |  |  |  |  |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

I've got another version using the PC line-drawing chars.


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

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 23:42:04 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Anti-BD grenades

In mail you write:

>> From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
>> 
>> [Me:]
>> 
>> > Leonard Erickson writes:
>
> [Na/K grenade]
>
>> > Nasty! But actually, won't the BD point-defence laser punch a hole in 
>> > it? I assume in normal operation the thermal charge turns the metal 
>> > into vapour, and the grenade bursts when the internal pressure 
>> > becomes high.  A hole would mean a single stream of metal vapour, 
>> > which would rapidly cool into small droplets anyway.
>> 
>> No, it emits a steady stream of vapor in lots of directions through
>> lots of holes. Or perhaps it just emits a burst of vapor (it take some
>> tests to find out which works best).
>> 
>> But what makes you think the vapour would cool into drops? Sure, it'll
>> eventually condense, but in a vacuum, the vapor cover cover a *lot* of
>> distance before running into anything.
>
> Alkali metals have very low heat capacities, and so will cool after 
> only a few collisions, forming small clusters of metal. Mind you, 
> they're quite shiny (in vacuum) so they won't radiate heat quickly,
> and might last long enough to splatter-plate BD. My guess is that at 
> thermal energies almost every collision will lead to a cluster.

So? In a vacuum, the thermal energy is mostly tied up in moving in a
straight line. Once out of the grenade, the *first* collision is likely
to be a wall or the BD. And the low heat capacity means that once it
hits, it'll stay. 

Think of it as speeded up "vapor deposition". It takes *very* little to
plate things in a vacuum.

>> > Only real problem is that even if you win, you have a heck of a time 
>> > cleaning up your ship, what with alkali metal painted all up the 
>> > walls (and probably not doing them a power of good either).  The best 
>> > thing to do would be to dissolve the stuff in absolutely dry 
>> > ethanol, but shipboard all that's going to be available is water.
>>
>> Actually just repressurize with water vapor, wait an hour or two for
>> the shine to go away, and add nitrogen. Then hose down the walls while
>> wearing suits. The (dilute!) hydroxide solution can easily be handled
>> by the reclamation system.
>
> Not sure how practical repressurising with water vapour is, in terms 
> of ship's lifesupport systems.

Shouldn't be too hard. Carry a bucket of water into the sealed off
section, and take off the lid. It'll boil dry *fast*. Repeat until you
reach a few psi. 

> Your main problem is the H2 gas, which 
> gets everywhere. Adding N2 will prevent explosive mixing of air and 
> H2 (well, maybe... you might want to try and vent the lot) but the H2 
> will get everywhere -- into the walls of the room, etc.. 250g of Na 
> would provide 130-odd litres of H2 gas, which is not a lot but hardly 
> trivial.

Ship's using LH2 fuel *have* to have *good* scrubbers for getting H2
out of the air. Otherwise the first fuel leak would be a disaster. 

Hmmm. It just occured to me that you could use a small fusion pack to
salt into Sodium and Chlorine plasma. The chlorine gets cooled into a
gas, (and used later to react with the H2). The sodium plasma gets
sprayed at the attackers.

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

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 12:24:22 +0000
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Spacecombat assumptions

I'm in the process of revamping my space combat system and would like some
input on certain assumtions

Assumtions:
The difficulty in hitting a ship with a laser is not due to random spread of
beams while firing but rather timelag from when you get the sensordata and the
time the beam/pulse arrives. This means that if a ship is accelerating straight
with no variance in accleration value nor direction a shot always hits as long
as it is within sensor resolving range. This means that what a ship defends
with is it's evasive acceleration and in order for such maneuvering to be
effective it has to accelerate a distance at least as long as the ships radius.
(Note that all (I hope) equations follow mathematical operator precedence to
avoid unneccessary parentheses)

The formula for accelerated distance is:
(1) s = at^2/2
a = acceleration in m/s^2, 1G = 9.81 m/s^2

The timelag for sensor/beamtravel is target to sensor and back again with
lightspeed. We need to make two measurements to get a velocity value and three
for acceleration value of the target. Assume we need to know the location,
velocity and acceleration of the target, this gives us:
(2) t = 6R/c where
R = range to target, c = 3E8 m/s (slightly less actually, I know)

The distance the target needs to accelerate to be effective is about a ships
radius which if assuming the ship is a cube is aproximately:
(3) r = v^(1/3)/2
v = ships volume in m^3

Now, plug (2) into (1) gives us:
(4) s = a(6R/c)^2/2 which becomes s = a18R^2/c^2

The range at which a certain shipsize with a certain evasion acceleration gets
effective we'll find by assuming (4) equals (3):
(5) v^(1/3)/2 = a18R^2/c^2

Shuffle the terms about to get R as a function of the other terms:
(6) R = (c^2*v^(1/3)/(36a))^(1/2) which looks better like:
(6) R = c(v^(1/3)/(36a))^(1/2)

Now, plug some numbers into (6) to see what we get. Assume a type S scout which
in your universe is 1400 m^3 and definately not a sphere but we leave that
aside for now. It evades with all its acceleration of 2G. This gives us:
c = 3E8, v = 1400, a = 2*9.81 and from (6) R = 37.8 thousand kilometers or
about one hex in space combat.

What does this tell us? That given the above assumtions a ship that fires on a
100 dTon ship that evades with 2G will be automatically hit if the range is
less than a hex. That's OK in the current system as most space combat will be
at 1 hex or more. How about an Azhanti High lightning?
According to Fighting Ships it is 60 000 dTons agility = 0(?) so we use 2G for
our calculations. This gives us:
c = 3E8, v = 840 000, a = 2*9.81 and R = 109.6 thousand kilometers or 3 hexes
or less. You cannot miss an Azhanti if it is within 3 hexes and evades at 2G.

I like these figures but you may not. We can handwave in the computer DM from
High Guard with this assumtion. The timelag calculation ignores the time
required to analyze sensordata in equation (2). If we assume a base time for
computation denoted p (for processing) and add this to (2)
(2b) t = p + 6R/c
Plug (2b) into (1) gives us:
(4b) s = a(p + 6R/c)^2/2 which becomes s = a(p^2+12pR/c+36R^2/c^2)
Equalling with (3) gives us
(5b) v^(1/3)/2 = a(p^2+12pR/c+36R^2/c^2)

What this leaves us is left as an exercise for the reader but basically it
works as the processing time adds a fixed range to the actual shooting range
R+ = pc/6 and for a 1 second processing time (too long to be realistic but
remember
that this is for handwaving purposes) R+ = 50 thousand kilometers or about 2
hexes. Note that processing is taking place while the 3 measurements to get
location, velocity and acceleration is done so I only add p once.

I'll be back with more on passive/active sensors, beam pointers et c.

Comments are welcome.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 09:46:33 -0600 (CST)
From: "Peter  H. Brenton" <pete@cummings.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Poor Craig Berry

On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Glenn M. Goffin, Esq. wrote:

> >From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
> >> I like where this is going...
> >
> "It's a terrible thing to lose one's mind, and what a waste that is" or words to that 
> effect.  --poorly remembered Dan Quayle during the '92 US presidential campaign

What a terrible thing to have lost one's mind. Or not to have a mind
at all. How true that is.
        -- Vice President Dan Quayle winning friends while
                   speaking to the United Negro College Fund

Try the Dan Quayle web site;

http://www.midstate.com/other/dan_quayle.html

Quite the riot.

I had never found evidence of sanity on this list.  Obsessive compulsive,
multiple personalities, paranoid schizophrenia, Emotional Disturbance,
even cleptomania (sp?)!  but sane, stable thought? that's not for this
fantasy world.

Pete  

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1113
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Saturday, March 29 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1114



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...
Re: Templars
Re: Whats in a name?
Re: Templars
Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)
Re: Spinward Marches Campaign (Maps)
Re: Spinward Marches Campaign (Maps)
Reentry systems...
Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)
Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)
High Guard
Re: 
Hivers
Re: Templars
The Call of Candory
Traveller Integrated Timeline
Re: Killing battledress
Re: Templars
Re: off topic - bookstore
Traveller stuff in periodicals

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 11:08:31 +0000
From: "Doctor Vince" <drvince@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...

> > Isn't 5000 m/s overkill, especially for a 4mm dart? The point is to 
> > actually have stopping power, not just drive neat 4mm holes right 
> > through the target?
> 
> At 5000 m/s, it *won't* "drill holes". The dart will *explode* on
> impact, with an energy equal to 2.7 times its weight in TNT. 

OK, I'll show my ignorance... how again is this explosion happening? 
A lexan dart with steel rails (and maybe a needle inside for AP) is 
going to *explode* when it contacts flesh? I would have thought it 
would punch through anything in its way, unless the target were hard 
enough to deflect it. I don't see why you postulate an explosion 
here...

> > One of the neat things I just thought of is that a gauss weapon could 
> > alter the muzzle velocity of the darts on the fly, boosting it for 
> > anti-armor, dropping it for anti-personnel... yuk. 
> 
> A "coil gun" could do that, but it'd make a complicated weapon even
> more complex. A rail gun *could* but you'd have to have a way to either
> change the strength of the magnetic field (not likely for a rifle) or
> be able to limit the current (not easy at the level involved).

Again, I guess I am not clear on the issues involved here. Why 
couldn't you just rig a potentiometer or some such to regulate the 
current being fed to the rails? It seems simple to me...

Vince 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The passion of lovers is for death...
                                    -Bauhaus
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  Vince Coccia, distinguished legal counsel for 
  His Infernal Majesty, is: drvince@ix.netcom.com
- --------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 08:39:10 -0800
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: Templars

At 11:19 PM 3/27/97 PST, Leonard Erickson wrote:
>In mail you write:
>
>> Based both on the historical Templars, and on the way a big conspiracy has
>> to operate, I'd lay odds that there's a visible, accessible front
>> organization...
>
>... You need a group with branches at
>most starports, a *strong* news gathering arm (actually a cover for
>intel ops), and lots of members who roam around with the organization
>supplying funds every so often. And some banking facilities in most
>branches as well as a rep for helping people who have been "stranded"
>or "wrongly" accused of things by the locals. Of course, 99% of the
>group is "cover" for the secret goings on.
>
>Only group like *that* is the Traveller's Aid Society....

Aaaiieeeeee!  Just when I think it's safe to use that High Passage, someone
posits something like this.  This is just _too_ perfect.  I always wondered
what the big deal was about getting Traveller's Aid membership as a
mustering out benefit... heh heh heh.



- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 12:11:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Whats in a name?

   Hi.

> From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)

> Well, while I know that you are talking about Galanglic grammar, I just
> *have* to point out that "Terra" being *Latin*, you use Latin
> grammatical rules. This "sort of" gives Terran. I say "sort of" because
> if you go by Latin rules for *naming*, the pair should be "Tellus" and
> "Tellurian". 

   I was assuming that the word came from Vilani, since it was coined by
   Hiroshi in an address to the empire, and it's analogous to "Zhodani"
   and "Vilani", which are obviously not anglic or latin constructions. 
   If it's Latin, then "Solomani" means "guys from Solomo/Soloma/Solom"
   (or "followers of Solomon").  Do these roots mean anything in Latin?

   It occurs to me that the name "Solomon" comes from a hebrew root
   meaning "peace".  This was one of my guesses as to the meaning of the
   root that originally produced "Solomani".  One might imagine, though,
   that this reference may have been a little obscure to Hiroshi's
   target audience.  (Although I'm sure that a good conspiracist can find
   an imaginative connection! 8^)

   -Rob

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 12:16:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Templars

   Hi.

> From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
> Ever wonder why there are *Five* sisters? :-)

   Yes, I have wondered.  Do you think you know an answer?  Please fill
   us in!

   -Rob, the curious.

   P.S.  Many moons ago, you gave the list a quiz:  Why did crumbs in the
   Mercury space capsules float toward the window?  I never noticed an
   answer.  Well, don't just keep us waiting!

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 00:45:16 +0000
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)

Damn! The Darrian secret has been spilled, and I was doing *so* well at
resisting letting anything out!

But don't worry about them visiting the Maghiz on you until the 1120's...
and then they could let it loose in a Virus Doomslayer.... ;-)

What other secrets shall we now allow to be revealed? The Black curtain?
Longbow? Longbow II? Jumpstart?

:)


    -Dom Mooney- dom@cybergoths.u-net.com
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
"But everything is still the same; passing the time, passing the blame.
We carry on in the same old way, we'll find out we left it too late one day,
 to say what we meant to say." - Marillion
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 00:54:18 +0000
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Spinward Marches Campaign (Maps)

Zane wrote:
><< Something that I've tried myself, a long time ago. I came across an
>interesting PD programme for the Atari ST that had atlases for the
>Imperium, but more intriguingly it allowed you to set the filters of what
>you wanted to see, and then print the output. Shame I haven't found
>anything similar for the Mac yet. >>
>
>Nice little prog, that - I've still got it somewhere. Not a lot of use on
>my new PC, of course...

I've one word for you EMULATION!  I don't know about the PC, but there is
an Atari ST emulater for the Macintosh available at
http://www.emulation.net/ the bad news is it's a demo with a 15 minute
timer.  The good news is even on a lot of 68k Macs it's supposed to be
faster than the real thing.>>

Yes, MagicMac - IIRC a '040 Mac runs up to 10-16 times faster! I'll try to
download it and try once I find the disk. You can get an emulator for the
PC - hardware (Gemulator) or software (Magic2?).

So where can the atlas viewer be found?>>

I got it off the STClub, a UK PD library. Have to dig out the reference -
most things are packed away as I'm about to move. They did have an address
on CIX - someone else may recall it.

    -Dom Mooney- dom@cybergoths.u-net.com
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
"But everything is still the same; passing the time, passing the blame.
We carry on in the same old way, we'll find out we left it too late one day,
 to say what we meant to say." - Marillion
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 97 19:30 GMT0
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Spinward Marches Campaign (Maps)

In-Reply-To: <v03007801af5fa39604d9@[205.184.181.87]>

<< >Nice little prog, that - I've still got it somewhere. Not a lot of use on
>my new PC, of course...

I've one word for you EMULATION!  I don't know about the PC, but there is
an Atari ST emulater for the Macintosh available at
http://www.emulation.net/ the bad news is it's a demo with a 15 minute
timer.  The good news is even on a lot of 68k Macs it's supposed to be
faster than the real thing.

So where can the atlas viewer be found? >>

On my hard disk? The author is David Burden - I don't have an email address 
for him, but he can probably be reached through BITS. My copy is (c) 1990, so 
there may be a more recent (maybe even Mac or PC) version. The whole thing is 
about a meg, but most of that is sector data so it should zip up smaller. If 
there's a demand, I'll stick it on my web page, but I'm busy atm, so don't 
hold your breath.

    ---------=========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, 28 Mar 1997 14:38:55 -0600
From: "Andrew Akins" <igor@netins.net>
Subject: Reentry systems...

On: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 15:22:11 +1100 (EST)
Michael Barry <mbarry@pcug.org.au>
Subject: Orbital reentry
Wrote:


<<A cry for help from the TML: 
Does anybody know what is the *minimum possible* size of a vehicle 
capable of orbital re-entry? I am thinking of the CT concept of the 
spacesuit 'reentry kit' complete with can of 'ablative foam' that allows 
a vacc suited person to survive reentry on a 7+ (+2 per level of Vacc 
suit skill). Ref for this: ? maybe the 'Marooned/Marooned Alone' double 
adventure? 
"...you decided to attempt a re-entry using the suit's foamed ablative 
re-entry package." Double Adventure 4, Marooned/Marooned Alone. 
- - - - but it's labelled "Fluoro-Gel Hair Mousse" NOOOOOOO!
<crisping/burning 
noises>

Two canon (I believe) sources:

Striker, Book 2: Jump capsules (pods capable of dropping a marine and his
gear onto a planetary surface ) take up .5 displacement tons in storage. A
Jump capsule lanucher displaces 1.5tons and provides space for 1 ready
capsule. Additional capsules can be added to the assembly for .5tons per
capsule.

JTAS #11: Here's the article for the reentry kit...it measures 50x50x125cm
when collapsed and masses 106.5kg. There is a more robust military version
that measures 50x50x80cm, which lacks a deorbit thruster and survival kit.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Andrew Akins                                                       |
| Home: igor@netins.net - http://www.netins.net/showcase/theakins/   |
| Work: andya@cms-gt.com - http://www.cms-gt.com/                    |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| May your villages remain ignorant of tax collectors, and may your  |
| sons be many and ugly and strong and willing workers, and may your |
| daughters be few and beautiful and excellent providers of love     |
| gifts from eminent families that live very far away, and may your  |
| lives be blessed by the beauty that has touched mine.              |
|                    - Number Ten Ox, "Bridge of Birds"              |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 97 21:51 GMT0
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)

In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970327032206.00673b34@netcom.ca>

<< The Darrians book (the only minor race to have its own book)was one of 
the best
(I didn't care too much for the pointed ears though.  I liked the Hiver book
very much 
also and the Solomani book next (our descendants are assholes...:-)). >>

I thought the Darrian one was a bit thin - padded out with too much white 
space and maps. The Solomani one I've nearly worn out! The Hiver one has a 
very silly picture of a Hiver standing on his 'head'. There seemed to be 
only about 3 copies of the K'Kree one printed (my copy allegedly used to 
belong to Marc himself...), while you can *still* find copies of the Aslan 
one in shops. And, of course, the Vargr one appeared to have been put 
together *by* a Vargr...

    ---------=========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, 28 Mar 97 21:51 GMT0
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Conspiracies (Fnord!)

In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970327032206.00673b34@netcom.ca>

<< The Darrians book (the only minor race to have its own book)was one of 
the best
(I didn't care too much for the pointed ears though.  I liked the Hiver book
very much 
also and the Solomani book next (our descendants are assholes...:-)). >>

I thought the Darrian one was a bit thin - padded out with too much white 
space and maps. The Solomani one I've nearly worn out! The Hiver one has a 
very silly picture of a Hiver standing on his 'head'. There seemed to be 
only about 3 copies of the K'Kree one printed (my copy allegedly used to 
belong to Marc himself...), while you can *still* find copies of the Aslan 
one in shops. And, of course, the Vargr one appeared to have been put 
together *by* a Vargr...

    ---------=========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, 28 Mar 1997 17:48:53 -0500 (EST)
From: ToddMoody@aol.com
Subject: High Guard

Howdy all!

I am new to the string but a long time traveller player.  I was wondering if
anyone has a High Guard for sale.  I lost mine several years ago and have not
been able to find one.

I don't know if I'm the only one but I still think it is the definitive book
for ship building....especially bigger ships.  Does anyone still do the
Trillion Credit Squadron thing?

Regards

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 16:14:12 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: 

At 10:15 PM 3/27/97 -0900, you wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 01:47:17 -0900
>> From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
>> Subject: Re: Traveller Weirness Part Deux
>
>[Ship of _very_ long message]
>
>I'm sorry I accidently sent this very long message to the list. I meant
>to send it to myself & apparently hit the wrong button, sorry.
>
Actually it helped me with my collection of these posts, so thanks!

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   clown outfits.       -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 19:30:07 -0500 (EST)
From: GDWGAMES@aol.com
Subject: Hivers

Andrew Boulton (in response to someone else):

>>  Oh, despite their names, the Hivers do not live in hives, and are not at 
>> all what that name might imply (bringing to mind bees and other mindless 
>> insects).
>
>ISTR they were originally going to be insects. Marc?

Marc's original notion was for them to be avian (to put it simply), but he
told me, John Harshman and Bill Keith to do whatever we wanted as long as
they were _not_ insect-like.

Loren Wiseman
    GDW Emeritus
 

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 16:30:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Templars

> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 11:52:20 -0800
> From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
> Subject: Re: Templars
> 
> We've been assuming the existence of a known space spanning telepathic
> "net", yes?  Perhaps the broadcast machine is on Andor or Candory.  Perhaps
> the emissions cause a subtle attraction in sentient races.  It might even be
> behind the desire to go to the stars!

Yes!  A siren song, luring sophonts from afar...what a lovely image!  Does
anyone happen to know what's immediately to spinward and rim-spinward of
Darrian subsector, canonically speaking?  One would expect some
interesting things through there, if this theory really works.

> We could just be moths, flying towards the Ancients flame.  This is why the
> Templars have tried to supress the open use of psionics, they know we'll get
> burned (more about this below.)

My guess is that Grandfather's psi-net isn't much of a threat to
individuals, unless you try to force yourself onto it (which only the most
adept psions can even think of attempting).  Lesser psis who accidentally
operate 'near' it get a strong queasy-repulsion reaction (without knowing
why) and do something different almost reflexively.  Paradoxically, the
broader and more important effect is to attract psi-capable races *toward*
Andor/Candory.  Douglas's moths-to-the-flame analogy is very apt.

> >And I'd lay odds on a covert military presence on most of the other worlds
> >within J6 of Andor/Candory.
> 
> Well, there is Research Station Zeta on Froin/Five Sisters (0539); it's only
> Jump 4 from the two Droyne worlds.

Bets on what they're researching? :)

> >Yeah, not Grandpa's fault, but our Friends of Yadroskay do pretty well by
> >themselves in keeping Virus away.  One wonders if Granddad didn't do a
> >little covert vampire removal work to help out, before the Regency got its
> >defenses in order.
> 
> Or maybe the Templars gave Norris' seneschal/long time companion an advance
> warning over the network?  Being the aide and lover of a powerful Duke,
> later Archduke would be just the thing that the Templars would aspire to,
> especially in the Spinward Marches.

Oh, *perfect*.  Yup, he's a Templar, no doubt about it.

> >> Which make you wonder.. have the Zhodani accesses the Net, and could that be
> >> the cause of the social breakdown we're seeing in the early 1200s?
> >
> >Absolutely, positively.  And (as I mentioned in another post), the
> >Templars have been in direct zero-transit-time contact with Zhodani psi
> >researchers since around year 0 -- so the Templars find out about the
> >whole Empress Wave mess before *anyone* else in the 3I does.
> 
> As I think about the Psionic Supressions/Zhodani reluctance to advance
> closer to the Droyne worlds/Network; I've come to believe that the Network
> is an iherently dangerous thing.  Hook up 100 human telepaths, and 99 of
> them will die screaming, while the other will spend the rest of days
> screaming at the walls.  1 in a 1000 may be able to use it, but that
> individual will get *weird*.

My model exactly.  Most psions will be utterly incapable of mustering
either the psychic power or the willpower to 'connect' enough to even get
hurt; a person able to really use the psinet will be a little weird to
start with, and get progressively more warped as time goes by.

> My reason for this belief is that the Network was designed for the 421
> super-intellegent ancients (Grandfather and the kids and grandkids.)  The
> human (or Vargr or Aslan) brain isn't capable of handling the overload of
> information, or the alien thought processes that it's carried in.  I'd
> imagine that even modern Droyne would have difficulty using the net.

I imagine that when the war between Grandpa and his clan erupted, control
of the psinet became an important object of battle.  One may imagine that
it's filled with the equivalent of 'mines' to keep out unwelcome users.
These may well be tuned specifically to Droyne minds, since those were the
only hostiles at the time of the war; as a result, modern Droyne may be
*least capable* of all psionic sophonts of using the psinet.

> The image of a convention of Vargr Shriners in Las Vegas.. the only city in
> human space that matches their tastes...

I'd like to see 'em in those little cars even more... :)

Next: Why Grandpa schlepped all the way to Earth to pillage local species.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 16:45:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: The Call of Candory

Leonard, damn him, in the same digest:

> Ever wonder why there are *five* sisters?
...
> Only group like *that* is the Traveller's Aid Society....

It's all been there, staring us in the face, from the beginning.  How Marc
must have laughed...membership in the ultimate secret society ruling all
of known space from behind the scenes is handed out on the friggin'
mustering out tables!  And the *five* sisters, surrounding the *two*
droyne homeworlds...no, mustn't discuss that, Glenn is monitoring this
channel...

[Craig skulks off down the corridor, glancing furtively over his shoulder
now and then.]

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 19:06:28 CST
From: Don McKinney <dmckinne@csci.csc.com>
Subject: Traveller Integrated Timeline

Well, finally recovered from Winter War XXIV and the flu, and I have begun
to work on the integrated timeline again.

And to make matters worse, my copy of Milleu Zero has walked out on me.
So, the real interesting stuff will have to wait (unless someone was
real nice and sent me the info, while I raise the capital to buy another
copy, sigh...)

So, here's the need info list:

CLASSIC TRAVELLER:
Adventure 13   Signal GK
Doub Adv 3     The Argon Gambit/Death Station
Alien Module 5 Droyne
Alien Module 8 Darrians (mostly page numbers - lots of ????)
Rules Set The Traveller Book/Starter Traveller
Game 4         Fifth Frontier War (esp. the TNS stuff, or was this reprinted in JTAS)
Game 5         Invasion Earth
Module 1  Tarsus (mostly page numbers - lots of ????)
Module 2  Beltstrike (mostly page numbers - lots of ????)
JTAS issues 1-5, 7, 9, 10 and 21 (BTW, send me TNS items as well...)

In addition, I need stuff from old TRAVELLER licensees - Judges Guild,
FASA, Group One, Marischal Adventures, Paranoia Press, and DGP (esp.
TD #5 and #18, which an old "friend" borrowed and then moved away)...

MEGATRAVELLER:
I need a list of products released by DGP and GDW - the only lists I've been
able to find are largely "CT".

And, any other licensees who produced MegaTraveller stuff (all I know about
is Seeker's deck plans).

THE NEXT ERA:
I never bought anything in this area, so someone who is a real big TNE fan
could really help me out.  Also, Harold Hale, I'll be adding your "Children
of Earth" material here, thanks for that (I hadn't forgotten!).

MILLEU ZERO:
See above.  Why couldn't they walked off with Starships, which was sitting
right under it?

Actually, I suppose any Traveller Chronicle information would be useful.
Also, I'm wanting to compile other fanzine material into this at some point...

Thanks for the help, and PLEASE respond.  Also, if you maintain a timeline
on the web, contact me, even if it's non-official.  I'm going to start 
incorporating that material shortly...
- --
============================================================================
= Donald E. McKinney, Senior CM Specialist,           (217) 351-8250 x2365 = 
= Computer Sciences Corporation, Champaign, IL       dmckinne@csci.csc.com =
= Winter War XXV Convention Chairman, Champaign, IL, February 6-8, 1998    =
= dmckinne@prairienet.org or winterwar@prairienet.org       (217) 469-9917 = 
============================================================================

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

Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 23:31:20 -0500
From: "Peter L. Berghold" <peterb@cyber-wizard.com>
Subject: Re: Killing battledress

Hugh Foster wrote:
Hugh Foster wrote:


> We tend to deflect the first one (after a good laugh at the mental picture) with
> the handwave of "cerametal" armour nicked from Julian May, but the second
> continues to bother me. There's no given info to suggest how feasible it is.
> Anyone got any take?
> 

In campaigns I've played in, BD was a ceramic composite of a non-ferrous
nature. Magneticly placed mines wouldn't work in this case.  However, a
player in that campaign came up with the idea of an adhesive attached
explosive device.  Not very pratical as he wasn't able to get close
enough to attach the device.

As far as the power pack and such goes, these are protected.  So you
can't really take them out. Some sort of AP rounds were the preferred
methodology...

- -- 
PGP Fingerprint = D6 74 56 8E FB 52 4E DD  5C 3F 32 FE AE 1F 1C D0

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% Peter L. Berghold -- Unix Hacker at Large                          %%
%% TCG -- MIS Department       PHONE: (908) 392-2722                  %%
%% berghold@tcg.com  (work Email) peterb@cyber-wizard.com (play Email)%%
%% "Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it"  %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 97 16:13:50 -0600
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Templars

On 03/27/97 at 11:19 PM,  shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) said:

> > Based both on the historical Templars, and on the way a big
> > conspiracy has to operate, I'd lay odds that there's a visible,
> > accessible front organization...

> Only group like *that* is the Traveller's Aid Society....

There you go!  Perfect!  TAS is the front organization, FNORD!


Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 97 16:08:29 -0600
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: off topic - bookstore

On 03/27/97 at 11:58 PM,  shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) said:

> >         I did NOT need such easy access to the biggest and best used
> > bookstore in the world!!!

> Hey, it's *local*. I just have to hop on a Bus and I get to walk thru the
> place! If I wasn't this broke, I'd *still* be this broke. :-)

I'm probably the only person in the world that would consider a good
bookstore (new or used) a tourist spot, but I'd rather tour a bookstore
than a canyon any day.

So, where is "the biggest and best used bookstore in th world" located? And
does it have a web site?


Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 97 11:11:45 -0500
From: Marcus <uphhsmt@gemini.oscs.montana.edu>
Subject: Traveller stuff in periodicals

- -- [ From: Marcus * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --


Hello to all,

     I'm trying to compile a list of currently in print publications which have
Traveller articles.  I'd like to include any fan-based publications that you
know about.  I'd like to have the following for each pub:

1) Name
2) Publisher
3) Approximate price
4) Address, Both snail and electronic.

Thanks in advance,


- --
TANSTAAFL, YCHTBE,
Marcus A. Teter
uphhsmt@gemini.oscs.montana.edu
Dept. of Physics
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1114
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Sunday, March 30 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1115



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Black Curtain
Re: Spinward Marches Campaign (Maps)
Much Ado About Starship Design
Re: Templars
Re: Templars
Re: off topic - bookstore
Re: Templars
Re: Templars
Re: off topic - bookstore
The "Templars" of the Long Night
THUDDD 2 entries on the Web
CT stuff for sale/trade
Re: off topic - bookstore
Re: The Call of Candory
Re: Templars
Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...
Re: Templars
Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...
Re: off topic

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 13:35:12 -0600 (CST)
From: Jeff Brawley <brawleyj@UWSTOUT.EDU>
Subject: Black Curtain

With all this talk of conspiracies, it got me thinking of what the Black
Curtain was.  It is on the map of The New Era, but it is of course never
explained.  In several of the TNE books regular Virus travel from rimward to
coreward is mentioned.  

If anybody knows what it is could please share it with me.  I was going to
use it in a campaign that I plan to run, and getting some idea of what it is
would be helpful.  

If you don't want to spill it to the whole list, my em is:  brawleyj@uwstout.edu

thanks,

Fnord

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 97 20:43 GMT0
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Spinward Marches Campaign (Maps)

In-Reply-To: <l03020901af60c6047226@[194.119.133.47]>

<< So where can the atlas viewer be found?>>

I got it off the STClub, a UK PD library. Have to dig out the reference -
most things are packed away as I'm about to move. They did have an address
on CIX - someone else may recall it. >>

stclub@cix.co.uk (IIRC).

    ---------=========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: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 15:45:13 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Much Ado About Starship Design

Hi,

A recent post asked about the ship design systems, what is being done, 
and so on and so forth.

1)  Marc Miller and Guy "Wildstar" Garnett are currently working on a 
revised QSDS, to be included in T4 Deluxe.  This will be the central ship 
design system for Traveller.

2)  Marc Miller is also working on a ship combat system, to be included 
in T4 Deluxe, that actually works and uses the ship features allowed 
under the QSDS. 

3)  After the new QSDS is finished, Marc, Guy, and David Golden will be 
crafting the "full-up" design system, Fire, Fusion, and Steel.  It will 
be fully compatible with, but much more flexible than, the new QSDS.

4)  As I mentioned a few times previously, the "Naval Archetect's Manual" 
listed on IG's site is NOT the same as the "Naval Archetect's Handbook" 
that was under discussion on GDW-Beta.  Naval Archetect's Manual will 
provide rules for designing deck plans, how starships operate, and 
all that good stuff.


And, just for the record, I'll state once again what the current design 
process is, and how it differs from the old (books 1-6) design process:

Old Design Process:  Designer(s) work from previously published materials 
to craft the book they're working on. It then goes into editing, 
typsetting, etc.

New Design Process:  Marc Miller comes up with an outline and general 
guidelines for what is to be included in the work.  Designer(s) work from 
that outline to create the tables to be used in the book.  Those tables 
are sent to Marc, who reviews them and requests any changes he feels are 
necessary.  The designers make those changes, then start writing the 
text.  As the text is completed, it is sent to Marc.  He may ask for 
additional changes, to ensure that everything conforms to his vision of 
Traveller.  Any final changes are made, then it goes into editing, 
typsetting, etc.

T4 is Marc Miller's Traveller.  He calls the shots.  It's not a bunch of 
people doing their own thing.  It's a team of game designers working 
closely with Marc to bring his vision of Traveller to reality.


Oh, and one more thing: I can't say for sure why Emperor's Arsenal isn't 
on the web site anymore.  I can only guess it was supposed to have been 
moved from "future products" to "present products," but the web site 
maintainer only got half-way through that process.  But, again, I don't 
really know.  All I know is, if it was scuttled, then IG's out a lot of 
money since the books have, to the best of my knowledge, already been 
printed.


- -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: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 14:10:15 -0900
From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
Subject: Re: Templars

> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 16:30:26 -0800 (PST)
> From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
> Subject: Re: Templars
> 
> > Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 11:52:20 -0800
> > From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
> > Subject: Re: Templars
> >
> > We've been assuming the existence of a known space spanning > >telepathic
> > "net", yes?  Perhaps the broadcast machine is on Andor or Candory.  > >Perhaps
> > the emissions cause a subtle attraction in sentient races.  It might > >even be
> > behind the desire to go to the stars!
> 
> Yes!  A siren song, luring sophonts from afar...what a lovely image!  > Does
> anyone happen to know what's immediately to spinward and rim-spinward of
> Darrian subsector, canonically speaking?  One would expect some
> interesting things through there, if this theory really works.

The subsectors immediately to spinward and rim spinward of the Darrian
subsector are Reidan (subsector L of Foreven) and Urnian (subsector P of
Foreven)  Imperial Lines #1 says (pg 2), in an article by Greg Videll
and Mark Mikesh,  "Marc Miller has officially set Foreven Sector aside
for MegaTraveller players and referees....The individual worlds and
systems of the sector have an official location within the MegaTraveller
universe but will not be named or have a UWP.  With only a few
exceptions...."

Reidan subsector contains 3 of the 5 worlds in the sector given UWP's

Hollis     2523  A370642-C A De Ni 303 Cs M3V

Hollis is a key Imperial client state within the region

Alenzar    3229  C000414-9   As Ni 513 Cs G0V
Raschev      3230  C8697C4-6       123 Cs M9V

for more details on these two worlds see Double Adventure 5 Charmax
Plague/Horde

Of the 22 worlds in Reidan subsector 4 are members of the Avalar
Consulate an ally of & client to the Zhodani Consulate

Urnian subsector contains 27 worlds none of which have detailed UWP's
provided , 3 worlds in the subsector are members of the Avalar
Consulate.

The Avalar Consulate, whose Capital is:
Avalar 1636 Foreven A75599C-C J Cp      904 Ac M0V
 occupies parts of subsectors J (Titan), K (Xenough), L (Reidan), M
(Harem), N (Piah) of Foreven.  Cannonically it continues rimward into
the Beyond Sector.  Unfortunately Parania Presses Beyond Sector does not
contain the Avalar Consulate and is therfore no longer canonical.  (I
still plan to use it anyway if players ever get that far as it is a good
product.) Intersetingly enough most of the Avalar Consulate is a fairly
narrow straight "up and down" (coreward/rimward) line but it has a
branch that reaches out to trailing towards the Spinward Marches.  This
branch is (surprise/surprise) at its closest to the Marches at 2829
(jump 5 from the sector border & jump 7 from the Darrian Confederation
(at Ektron)and at 2731 (jump 6 from the sector border & jump 6 from the
nearest imperial world Emape (which has a Naval base)  It looks to me as
if the Avalar Consulate is trying (no doubt on the secret orders of
their hidden masters, the Zhodani) to get as close as they dare to the
Five Sisters subsector but the Imperial Navy is not letting them.

As an interesting point for those of you whose conspiracies and signs
include numerology (total garbage in the real world but amusing in an
Illuminated one), a clever player might notice that the Five Sisters
subsector was originally named District 267, and 2+6+7=15 and 1+5=6
therfore we "know" that the number 6 is highly significant for the Five
Sisters subsector. The Five Sisters Subsector was named (Regency
Sourcebook pg 48) by "the merchant captain Ignaz Rufferlan who was the
first Imperial to explore this area. He founnd a cluster of five
inhabitable worls which he laid claim for and named for his
daughters...."  Five daughters and one merchant captain father: 5+1 = 6
more proof that 6 is numerologically significant.  Now what races does
the number six make you think of - maybe the Droyne (6 castes) and the
Hivers (6 limbs).  Even more interestingly the Hivers themselves have a
fascination for the number 7, could this represent the 6 types of Droyne
and the Hivers as the 7th type ? 

Hivers & Ithulkur for TNE implies that the assasination of Emporer
Strephon and the subsequent collapse of the Third Imperium was caused by
a Hiver Manipulation (Ever wonder _why_ Dulinor was unhappy with the
status quo ?).  Maybe the Hivers needed the Third Imperium out of the
way so that they could reach The Five Sisters subsector themselves. 
This would make the Hiver encouragement of their New Era client state,
THe Reformation Coalition, highly significant, especially since we know
that The Regency and The Reformation Coalition were supposed to meet one
day....
 
[snip]

> > Or maybe the Templars gave Norris' seneschal/long time companion an advance
> > warning over the network?  Being the aide and lover of a powerful   > >Duke,
> > later Archduke would be just the thing that the Templars would      > >aspire to,
> > especially in the Spinward Marches.
> 
> Oh, *perfect*.  Yup, he's a Templar, no doubt about it.

We have always assumed that he is not only a Zhodani trained psionicist
but is in fact a Zhodani national of Imperial descent.  Biologically he
is a Solomani/Vilani mix, like most Imperials, but he is culturally
Zhodhani & comes from a planet in the Spinward Marches (probably in the
Chronar Subsector) that was Imperial before the First Frontier War but
is now Zhodani.

This optional background already makes him fairly interesting and would
tend to preclude his being a Templar but if you wanted to make Branj
Dilgaadin a really complicated charecter you could make him a Templar as
well.

Possibly his Special psionics includes some form of Advanced Telepathy
that gives him a compartmentalized mind, so even a mind scan that gets
past his shields would reveal a "shell" mind. :)

Peter Newman - who has always played in an Illuminated Third Imperium

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 15:56:04 -0800
From: rdhough@orca.bc.ca (Richard Hough)
Subject: Re: Templars

The proposals for the Templars is very interesting, and a variant of them
will definitely appear in my campaign. I will make a few changes, which
other referees may consider:

Calling them "Templars" may sound cool but is not very smart; many sophonts
(especially PCs) will know about the historical Templars and will be
instantly suspicious of any group using the name. Even calling the 'front'
organization the Templars would be too obvious and arouse suspicions. More
likely, "Templar" would be an epithet used by their political opponents.

I am very reluctant to make any of the innermost circle psionic; adding yet
another psionic society after the Zhodani, Psionics Institute, Psionic
Knights, and Droyne is risking overuse. It is also inconsistent; according
to canon most Imperial society is very suspicious of psionic individuals.
Why would a secret society be less suspicious than the rest of the
populace? More likely, they would be even more vigilant agains psionic
takeovers. Plot-wise, it is totally unnecessary to make any of the Templars
psionic. A group of nobles with connections to the throne,
megacorporations, military, and TAS is already plenty powerful enough.

Nor do I have any intention of adding a galaxy-wide instantaneous psionic
communication grid. This is completely non-canon and unbalances the game.
Limited speed of communication is a fundamental aspect of the Traveller
universe, and so far as I am aware even the Ancients did not have
instantaneous communication. The Ancient base in Twilight's Peak certainly
did not. The economic advantage of instantaneous interstellar communication
is so overwhelming I cannot believe the Templars would not use it regularly
with enormous charges. Even the knowledge that instantaneous communication
is theoretically possible will affect research and commerce.

The original Templar idea, that of a secret society which would protect
weaker groups from rapacious PCs, seems to have grown into a gargantuan
conspiracy so powerful there is little probability, and even less reason,
that it remain secret. The proposed group could knock over the Third
Imperium in an evening if it wanted to. Since it is so powerful any group
of PCs would be little threat, it is also uninteresting drama-wise.
Consider some of the established societies in Traveller; the Traveller's
Aid Society and the Octagon Society. Are they interesting because they
rival the Third Imperium in might? No. They are interesting because they
have a well-described background with plenty of hooks for players to
interact with them. I feel the Templars would be more interesting if they
were more like the Octagon society and less like Lensmen.

- --
Richard Hough
rdhough@orca.bc.ca

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

Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 01:35:32 +0000
From: Garry Ward <Garry.E.Ward@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: off topic - bookstore

At 10:08 PM 3/28/97 +0000, you wrote:
> <snip>
>I'm probably the only person in the world that would consider a good
>bookstore (new or used) a tourist spot, but I'd rather tour a bookstore
>than a canyon any day.
>
>So, where is "the biggest and best used bookstore in th world" located? And
>does it have a web site?
>
>
>Eris
>-- 
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>

No, you are not the only person to consider a bookstore a tourist site.

Told my wife some time back " ... where ever you want to go, just so long as
there is a bookstore nearby".

Garry

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 21:37:16 +0000
From: Mused <marz@HotStar.net>
Subject: Re: Templars

Richard Hough wrote:
> Calling them "Templars" may sound cool but is not very smart; many sophonts
> (especially PCs) will know about the historical Templars and will be
> instantly suspicious of any group using the name. 

It is my experience that any secret organization that has a name is a pretty poor secret 
organization. The best secret organization is named after the fact, and does not, under any 
circumstances, call themselves Illuminati, Templars, Hospitallers, Star Chamber or such.
If they have a name it is probably something like the CEO's Glee Club or The Municipal 
Committee for Progress

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 21:59:09 +0000
From: Mused <marz@HotStar.net>
Subject: Re: Templars

All this fascination with the Templars, here is some food for thought (from the A-Z of 
Cults website)

Order of the Solar Temple 

Among the members of the Solar Temple who were found dead in Switzerland last October 
was a mayor, a journalist, a civil servant and a sales manager. Computer records seized by 
Canadian police in Montreal showed that some members had personally donated over $1 
million to the cult's leader Joseph Di Mambro. But the respectability of these followers' 
public lives was in massive contrast to the bizarre small cult they had joined. 

The cult believed that Di Mambro had in a previous life been a member of the Knight's 
Temple (during the Crusades, naturally) and that he would lead them, through death, to the 
planet of Sirius. During ceremonies, they wore Crusade-type robes and held in awe a 
sword Di Mambro said had been given to him 1,000 years ago. He claimed that his 
daughter Emanuelle was 'the cosmic child' and had been conceived without sex. When a 
couple in the cult called their own son Emmanuel, Di Mambro declared it the Antichrist and 
ordered the family's murder. This was carried out ceremonially, shortly before the whole 
cult decamped from Canada to Switzerland. (The boy's mother, Nicky Dutoit, was from 
East Sussex.) 

Later investigation revealed that 69-year-old Di Mambro had moved to Canada following 
tax problems in his native France. He had convictions there for practising psychology 
without a licence and for bouncing cheques. He had also founded a school near the Swiss 
boarder called the Centre For The Preparation For The New Age, the proceeds of which 
had enabled him to buy a 15-room mansion in the Haute Savoie. 

It has been rumoured that Di Mambro in fact disguised his own death at one of the two 
Swiss mass suicides, both of which were destroyed by fire. In all, 53 members of the cult 
died. 

Reason to join: You might meet someone who fought in the Crusades. 

Reason not to join: Suicide pacts can ruin your week. 

Bottom line: 'Liberation is not where human beings think it is. Death can represent an 
essential stage of life.' - Luc Jouret, deputy leader of the Order of the Solar Temple.

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 19:06:52 -0800
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: off topic - bookstore

>>I'm probably the only person in the world that would consider a good
>>bookstore (new or used) a tourist spot, but I'd rather tour a bookstore
>>than a canyon any day.

Powell's is no mere tourist spot; it's more like a pilgrimage destination.
I know many people who have gone to Portland, Oregon for a conference or
something, only to come away raving about Powell's. :)

What's worse, there are now, what, four or five Powells locations in and
around PDX?   Siiiiigh.



- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 22:11:21 -0500 (EST)
From: "John P. Raynor" <john.raynor@yale.edu>
Subject: The "Templars" of the Long Night

On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Richard Hough wrote:
> Calling them "Templars" may sound cool but is not very smart; many sophonts
> (especially PCs) will know about the historical Templars and will be
> instantly suspicious of any group using the name. Even calling the 'front'
> organization the Templars would be too obvious and arouse suspicions. More
> likely, "Templar" would be an epithet used by their political opponents.

I, too, consider the idea of calling this organization "the Templars" 
questionable, but for a different reason: the historical Order was active
thousands of years before "the present," even in Year 0.  At Imperium's
core, students of ancient Terran history might know who the Templars were,
but there would be so much Vilani and Sylean history to keep track of that
the Crusades wouldn't shine quite so brightly.  Would a group of 20th
century Americans name a secret society after some ancient Assyrian group? 
In Solomani space, the historical Templars might still have a claim on the
imaginations of would-be conspirators and armchair historians, but at the
Imperial core?  I really doubt it.

However...
Here's an alternative "Templar history" for the group's consideration:

I can easily envision a very "Templar-esque" Order developing during the
Long Night, dedicated to keeping the shipping lanes free of pirates.  Such
a group (the "Ur-Templars") probably weren't very noble...indeed, they
might have been little better than pirates themselves (charging
exhorbitant rates for convoy escorts, and muscling out competition). As
the Sylean Federation grew and restored Law and Order, the "Ur-Templars" 
would have become unnecessary, and might have faded into the background
(or dropped their militaristic tendencies to avoid getting Purged, and,
like the historical Templars of Terra, gone into business, perhaps
becoming some kind of long-distance shipping line, a courier company, an
arms manufacturing firm, or some such thing, adapting the "military
infrastructure" to commerical ends).

But the "Ur-Templars", at their militaristic prime, during the Long Night,
would be swashbuckling figures of romance in Year O.  The "Ur-Templar
Order" might have squabbled and SPLIT as the Sylean Federation grew.  One
branch decided to "go into business," and turned into some kind of
Federation-spanning corporation (which probably got gobbled up by one of
those incredibly durable big Vilani corporations, but might still exist as
a name and a few strange traditions, just as several extinct car companies
still exist within General Motors).  The OTHER branch of the "Ur-Templars" 
decided to go, in an informal and very covert way, into politics.  This
branch of the organization would be VERY strong in the Federation's Navy
and the Scout Service, and might have gained influence in the circles
which would become the Imperial nobility, via "old naval families."
Restoring the Rule of Man, under an Emperor of Solomani descent, was
probably one of the goals of the "secret, political branch" of the
officially-extinct "Ur-Templar Order." 

Whaddya think?

Of course, Emperors are seldom know for their gratitude.  Cleon himself
might be happy with those King-Making descendants of the "Ur-Templars," 
but I can easily see him (or one of his descendants) becoming VERY nervous
about "Templars" in the Imperial Navy, and certain aristocratic circles. 
Perhaps "the Great Templar Purge" is something for around "Milleu 200" 
This is where my theory regarding "Imperial Marine commanders as
unofficial political officers" comes into play...(to keep an eye on all
those unreliable "Temp-symp" blue-blood naval officers). 

Yes, they need a new NAME - I agree, calling 'em "Templars" is silly - but
I think a "Templar-esque Order" dating back to the Fall of the Rule of
Man, or the bleakest times of the Long Night, is entirely plausible,
provides enough of a "swashbuckling romanic aura"
                                                              - J. Raynor

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 23:52:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: THUDDD 2 entries on the Web

Hi, all,

As Paul and I discussed privately a while back, I'm trying to put the
THUDDD entries and results online.  After far too much delay, the entries
for THUDDD 2 (the merc cruiser) are available at:

  http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/thuddd2.html

Contest results will be added shortly.  I wanted to get this out ASAP,
though, to see if anyone had comments or suggestions on how to make this
more useful.  Enjoy!

On a related note, is anyone using my QSDS 1.5 spreadsheet?  I'm starting
to tinker with the next version, and again, suggestions would be welcome.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

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

Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 00:30:05 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: CT stuff for sale/trade

While digging through my stuff I just discovered that I had an extra
copy of "A Pilot's Guide to Drexilthar Subsector". This is a sector in
Reaver's Deep. It's written by J. Andrew Keith, and published by
Gamelords. 

Make offer, you pay shipping.
- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 23:32:51 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: off topic - bookstore

In mail you write:

> On 03/27/97 at 11:58 PM,  shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) said:
>
>> >         I did NOT need such easy access to the biggest and best used
>> > bookstore in the world!!!
>
>> Hey, it's *local*. I just have to hop on a Bus and I get to walk thru the
>> place! If I wasn't this broke, I'd *still* be this broke. :-)
>
> I'm probably the only person in the world that would consider a good
> bookstore (new or used) a tourist spot, but I'd rather tour a bookstore
> than a canyon any day.
>
> So, where is "the biggest and best used bookstore in th world" located? And
> does it have a web site?

Portland, OR. And it does have a Web site: www.powells.com

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

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 23:28:05 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: The Call of Candory

In mail you write:

> Leonard, damn him, in the same digest:

Too late. I was damned long ago. I'm just glad that the current model
"containers" used for disembodied brains by our friends from Yuggoth
include internet conmnections. :-)

>> Only group like *that* is the Traveller's Aid Society....
>
> It's all been there, staring us in the face, from the beginning.  How Marc
> must have laughed...membership in the ultimate secret society ruling all
> of known space from behind the scenes is handed out on the friggin'
> mustering out tables!

There's "membership" and there's MEMBERSHIP. You won't get anything but
membership in the "cover" group by mustering out. 

> [Craig skulks off down the corridor, glancing furtively over his shoulder
> now and then.]

Uh, Craig? 

When skulking, I've found that it helps to pay attention to what may be
coming from *in front*.

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

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 21:37:47 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Templars

In mail you write:

>    Hi.
>
>> From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
>> Ever wonder why there are *Five* sisters? :-)
>
>    Yes, I have wondered.  Do you think you know an answer?  Please fill
>    us in!

How many points are there on a Mnaran star-stone? 

>    P.S.  Many moons ago, you gave the list a quiz:  Why did crumbs in the
>    Mercury space capsules float toward the window?  I never noticed an
>    answer.  Well, don't just keep us waiting!

I *did* post it. Probably in the same message after a "spoiler space".

Anyway, it's quite simple. The windows look out on interstellar space
(which has a radiation temp of 3K). Since the crumbs aren't terribly
conductive thermally, and they have a low mass the side facing the
window cools off quite a bit. 

Now the crumbs are being bombarded ion all sides by air molecules.
These average out as fas as which side they bounce off of. But when
they hit and rebound, the speed of the rebound depends on the temp of
the surface they are rebounding from. So they rebound slower from the
"cold" side of the crumb. Which means that it gets a net momentum
*towards* the window. 

As I said in the original, I have no doubt that *someone* will find a
way to use this to set up a practical joke....

It also means that on ships with big observation windows, you *will*
get chilled on the side facing them. (Which is why you take your date
up to the observation deck. She gets "chilled" and you are there to
warm her up. :-)

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

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 21:58:24 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...

In mail you write:

>> > Isn't 5000 m/s overkill, especially for a 4mm dart? The point is to 
>> > actually have stopping power, not just drive neat 4mm holes right 
>> > through the target?
>> 
>> At 5000 m/s, it *won't* "drill holes". The dart will *explode* on
>> impact, with an energy equal to 2.7 times its weight in TNT. 
>
> OK, I'll show my ignorance... how again is this explosion happening? 
> A lexan dart with steel rails (and maybe a needle inside for AP) is 
> going to *explode* when it contacts flesh? I would have thought it 
> would punch through anything in its way, unless the target were hard 
> enough to deflect it. I don't see why you postulate an explosion 
> here...

The dart is moving at a fair fraction of *orbital velocity*. It'll
explode on contact with *anything* that is remotely solid. As noted the
kinetic energy of an object moving at 5000 m/s (5 km/s) is equal to the
energy released by detonating a piece of TNT that weighs 2.7 times as
much.

Even at velocities as low as 1500-2000 m/s you start getting the
"explode on impact" effect. 

Look at it this way, the dart has *so much* kinetic energy that the
energy release caused by something solid/liquid starting to slow it
down will *vaporize* it. 

BTW, the dart *must* be conductive, but it doesn't need to be magnetic.
The "rails" are inside the barrel. They act as contacts for the dart.
It slides along them while conducting lots of amps from one rail to the
other.

>> > One of the neat things I just thought of is that a gauss weapon could 
>> > alter the muzzle velocity of the darts on the fly, boosting it for 
>> > anti-armor, dropping it for anti-personnel... yuk. 
>> 
>> A "coil gun" could do that, but it'd make a complicated weapon even
>> more complex. A rail gun *could* but you'd have to have a way to either
>> change the strength of the magnetic field (not likely for a rifle) or
>> be able to limit the current (not easy at the level involved).
>
> Again, I guess I am not clear on the issues involved here. Why 
> couldn't you just rig a potentiometer or some such to regulate the 
> current being fed to the rails? It seems simple to me...

The potentiometer required would have to have windings of wire *thicker*
than the rails. Otherwise you'd lose to much current (or just plain
*melt* them). We're talking about something like 100 amps (probably
*more*). The wires from the powerpack to the rails are going to be
about as thick as a pencil.

Consider, if the dart weighs 20 grams, at 5000 m/s it has a KE of 500
kJ. And I already figured in a previous message that it takes 400
*microseconds* to travel the length of the barrel. Which means that we
need 1.25e9 *gigawatts* of power during those 400 microseconds. Getting
that without arcing over the rails requires some *very* high currents. 

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

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

Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 11:07:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Re: Templars

In a message dated 97-03-30 08:57:51 EST, Shadow  writes :

>It also means that on ships with big observation windows, you *will*
>get chilled on the side facing them. (Which is why you take your date
>up to the observation deck. She gets "chilled" and you are there to
>warm her up. :-)
And they say gearheads have no social life...
dsf

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

Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 18:17:14 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...

>The potentiometer required would have to have windings of wire *thicker*
>than the rails. Otherwise you'd lose to much current (or just plain
>*melt* them). We're talking about something like 100 amps (probably
>*more*). The wires from the powerpack to the rails are going to be
>about as thick as a pencil.

Can we say superconducting?


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Sun, 30 Mar 97 16:22:36 GMT
From: Shane Thomas <s.n.thomas@aelfgyva.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: off topic

Leonard Erickson scribbled:

>Like I told Bruce, I have to spread the agony around. I walked in one
>day, and spotted a *first edition* of The Hunt for Red October (the
>Naval Institute Press edition!) and I couldn't afford it. And of
>course, it was gone by the time I had money... Wah!

Poor you!  By the way, I managed to pick up a copy of this in a local
second hand book store a couple of months ago for the grand sum of 95p!
(That's what? $1.60 or so?)  I keep going back, but obviously they havn't
let that person price any of the new stock since then :-(
- --
Shane N Thomas
Oxford
England

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1115
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Monday, March 31 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1116



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: THUDDD 2 entries on the Web
Re: off topic - bookstore
Re: off topic - bookstore
Re: off topic
Accrete
Re: Templars
Subject: Re: off topic - bookstore
Re: off topic
Re: Whats in a name?
Sylea --> Capitol
Re: Much Ado About Starship Design
A few questions.. and a long rant [response]
Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...
Re: Templars

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

Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 12:03:12 -0500
From: "Chris Cox" <chriscox@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: THUDDD 2 entries on the Web

Craig,

I saw that you posted my ship design on the web.  Since what you posted i=
s
mangeled version of my entry, I would appreciate if you would remove the
design that you have on the web.  If you like you can use what my entry
looked like before it was mauled (include below).  Since the version belo=
w is
my original entry it still has a couple of errors.  If you would like I c=
an
fix it up and send you an updated copy of the ship.

Thanks

Chris Cox
(chriscox@ix.netcom.com)

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
- -----
- ---

Auroro Aglo (Dawn Eagle) class Support Cruiser (Type SC)
SSDS

Tons: 900dt (Airframe)   Volume: 12,600 m^3      Cost: 951.3/885.7MCr*
Crew: 50                 Troops: 50               Low: 0
Cargo: 101.5/148.6*     Controls: Std (Bridge, CnC)  TL: 12

8 Size                               2 Jump Drive (90dt/Pc Fuel)
                                     3 Maneuver (Thrusters, 675Mw)
1x 1,000Mj Meson Gun (+4) 2/2-1-0-0  2.67 Power Plant (1,200Mw)
3x 251Mj Laser (+4) 1/4-2-0-0        183.2 Fuel (S 73.3, R 50)
1x Missile Barbette (+4) 5/4         3 Meson Screen (10Mw)
                                     4x Sandcasters (30 Cans)
2x 4dt Spacious Garage               2 Nuclear Damper
3x 4dt Minimal Garage                A10 P4 J10 Sensors (EMM)
                                     20 Armor, 17 Structure

Crew Detail:1xPilot, 1xAstrogator, 7xCommand, 7xEngineer, 1xSteward 2xMed=
ic,
20xGunners, 3xMaintenance, 8xElectronics, 50xTroops

*The second number for cost and cargo is for the ship without the Meson G=
un.

Notes: The most common variant of the Auroro Aglo has the Meson Gun left =
out
and the addition space used for cargo.  The accommodations for the crew
consist of 3 Large Staterooms, 27 Small staterooms and 20 Bunks.  The
accommodations for the Troops consist of 1 Large Stateroom, 23 Small
Staterooms and 26 Bunks.  Standard facilities included are a double size =
Sick
Bay, a Machine Shop and an Electronics Shop.  The ship has two non-standa=
rd
facilities; a Brig and an Armory.  There are only three months worth of P=
ower
Plant fuel.  Addition electronics include a second full electronics suite=
 to
facilitate Command and Control for the troops and two backup MFDs.  Despi=
te
having MFDs to control the lasers and missiles, there are 7 addition gunn=
ers
for the laser turrets and the missile barbette.  7 additional troops can =
be
carried in place of the redundant gunners.

Chris' Custom Facilities
         Mass          Volume     Power    Cost
         (Metric Tons) (m3)       (MW)     (MCr.)
Armory   134.4         224(16dt)  1        2.5
Brig      54.6         182(13dt)  0.8      1


Here is a cheaper stripped-down version of Auroro Aglo.  This version has=
 the
following systems removed: The Meson Gun, the Meson Screen, the second
Electronics Suite, the backup MFDs and the EMM.  With these systems remov=
e
the ship can transport 60 troops.

Auroro Aglo (Dawn Eagle) class Support Cruiser (Type SC)
SSDS

Tons: 900dt (Airframe)   Volume: 12,600 m^3       Cost: 675.8MCr
Crew: 40                 Troops: 60               Low: 0
Cargo: 148.6/39.1*     Controls: Std (Bridge)  TL: 12

8 Size                               2 Jump Drive (90dt/Pc Fuel)
                                     3 Maneuver (Thrusters, 675Mw)
                                     2.67 Power Plant (1,200Mw)
3x 251Mj Laser (+4) 1/4-2-0-0        183.2 Fuel (S 73.3, R 50)
1x Missile Barbette (+4) 5/4         0 Meson Screen
                                     4x Sandcasters (30 Cans)
2x 4dt Spacious Garage               2 Nuclear Damper
3x 4dt Minimal Garage                A10 P4 J10 Sensors (EMM)
                                     20 Armor, 17 Structure

Crew Detail:1xPilot, 1xAstrogator, 5xCommand, 7xEngineer, 1xSteward 2xMed=
ic,
16xGunners, 3xMaintenance, 4xElectronics, 60xTroops

* The second number is the amount of addition space freed up by the remov=
ed
systems, however, this space is scattered through out the ship in odd chu=
nks
making it difficult to use for cargo space.

Note: The accommodations for the crew consist of 3 Large Staterooms, 27 S=
mall
staterooms and 10 Bunks.  The accommodations for the Troops consist of 1
Large Stateroom, 23 Small Staterooms and 36 Bunks.



The Auroro Aglo class Support Cruiser was first built for the RaTanie Def=
ense
Forces (RDF) by Starkin Shipyards.  The RDF needed a ship capable of
transporting and supporting a full company of troops.  Despite the Auroro
Aglo's cost, it was selected by the RDF because of its depth of systems a=
nd
facilitates.  At first the Auroro Aglo class were all built with a Meson =
Gun,
but with time the RDF requested a second version built, with the Meson Gu=
n
omitted.  Eventually a total 209 Auroro Aglos were built for the RDF, 143
Meson Gun ship and 66 others.  After the production of ships for the RDF
ceased, Starkin Shipyards still continued building the Auroro Aglo class =
for
other planetary governments and private parties.  In this fashion Starkin
Shipyards produced 42 more ships, with about half of them being the fully
stripped-down version.  Today only two Auroro Aglos are in service with t=
he
RDF, however, many other Auroro Aglo Cruisers can be found around in use =
by
independent mercenary companies and lower tech planetary navies.

Random thoughts:  When designing the ship I really liked the idea of havi=
ng
the ship tricked out with all the goodies.  This of course resulted in a
design that may be too expensive for some, so, I included a version of th=
e
ship with many of the goodies removed.  It seems that SSDS requires
sandcasters to have a MFD.  This is inconsistent with QSDS and results in
sandcasters not being the inexpensive defense that they should be, so I
ignored this requirement.


Please feel free to come and take look at the Auroro Aglo and its deckpla=
ns
online at:
(http://users.aol.com/ogerdude/mercru.htm)
(hopefully this will be online no later than 1 or 2am (New York reckoning=
)
Monday the 10th)

By Chris Cox (chriscox@ix.netcom.com)
Copyright 1997=A9 Lawrence C. Cox
Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises. All rights
reserved.


- ----------
> From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
> To: Traveller Mailing List <traveller@NS.MPGN.COM>; ISBA Mailing List
<isba@goldinc.com>
> Subject: THUDDD 2 entries on the Web
> Date: Sunday, March 30, 1997 2:52 AM
>=20
>=20
> Hi, all,
>=20
> As Paul and I discussed privately a while back, I'm trying to put the
> THUDDD entries and results online.  After far too much delay, the entri=
es
> for THUDDD 2 (the merc cruiser) are available at:
>=20
>   http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/thuddd2.html
>=20
> Contest results will be added shortly.  I wanted to get this out ASAP,
> though, to see if anyone had comments or suggestions on how to make thi=
s
> more useful.  Enjoy!
>=20
> On a related note, is anyone using my QSDS 1.5 spreadsheet?  I'm starti=
ng
> to tinker with the next version, and again, suggestions would be welcom=
e.
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>    |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
>  --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
>    |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/  =20
>        "Every man and every woman is a star."
>=20

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

Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 10:42:31 -0800
From: "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: off topic - bookstore

>Powell's is no mere tourist spot; it's more like a pilgrimage destination.
>I know many people who have gone to Portland, Oregon for a conference or
>something, only to come away raving about Powell's. :)

Yes, but to those of us that live there it's a curse!  I ought to know,
considering what I just spent there yesterday!

>What's worse, there are now, what, four or five Powells locations in and
>around PDX?   Siiiiigh.

Yes, but only three count.  The main store in downtown, the technical
bookstore, and the Washington Square store.  A good example of size, the
Technical book store probably has more books than the average Barnes &
Noble, and about half are on Computers!  There is also a cookbook store, a
travel store, and a shop at the airport.  The downtown store is where they
started they've been there for years, but the rest have mainly shown up in
the last ten years.  It's a case of the downtown store being an entire city
block (about half multi-story), and not large enough to hold all the books!

To get on topic, both the main store in downtown, and the Washington Square
store have a few (very few) Traveller items.  However, the classic stuff is
on the HIGH side, price wise.  I really wish they would carry more RPG
stuff, the downtown store just seems to stock used.  The Washington Square
store has a good selection of new, in fact that's where I got my copy of
"Delta Green".

               Zane


| Zane H. Healy                    | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh@ix.netcom.com (primary)  | Linux Enthusiast          |
| healyzh@holonet.net (alternate)  | Mac Programmer            |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------+
| For Empire of the Petal Throne, and Traveller Role Playing   |
| see http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/                      |

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

Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 13:33:01 -0800
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: off topic - bookstore

At 10:42 AM 3/30/97 -0800, Zane H. Healy wrote:
>>Powell's is no mere tourist spot; it's more like a pilgrimage destination.
>>I know many people who have gone to Portland, Oregon for a conference or
>>something, only to come away raving about Powell's. :)

> ... There is also a cookbook store, a
>travel store, and a shop at the airport.  

The airport store has saved me more than once; it's not often you can pick
up a good SF novel or (especially!) a Patrick O'Brian novel while on the
run to your flight!



- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

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

Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 17:59:55 -0500 (EST)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: off topic

In a message dated 97-03-30 13:10:20 EST, you write:

> 
>  Leonard Erickson scribbled:
>  
>  >Like I told Bruce, I have to spread the agony around. I walked in one
>  >day, and spotted a *first edition* of The Hunt for Red October (the
>  >Naval Institute Press edition!) and I couldn't afford it. And of
>  >course, it was gone by the time I had money... Wah!
>  
>  Poor you!  By the way, I managed to pick up a copy of this in a local
>  second hand book store a couple of months ago for the grand sum of 95p!
>  (That's what? $1.60 or so?)  I keep going back, but obviously they havn't
>  let that person price any of the new stock since then :-(
>  --
>  Shane N Thomas
>  Oxford
>  England
>  

Off Off Topic.

The month before Red October was published, I met Tom Clancy at a game
convention (he was therewith Larry Bond). Tom passed out bound galleys of Red
October (that, I guess, is a pre-first edition).

We played a Harpoon scenario trying to get the Red October past and Alpha and
into port. Afterwards, he inscribed my copy to the character / role I
played.. Marko Ramius.

Marc



Marc

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

Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 18:23:26 -0500 (EST)
From: "John P. Raynor" <john.raynor@yale.edu>
Subject: Accrete

Does anyone know where I might find a version of "Accrete" 
which allows the user to set the mass(es) of the star(s) in
each solar system?  Is there an "Accrete" variant that also
generates moons, as well as planets?
                                                - J. Raynor

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

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 01:13:23 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Templars

Mused <marz@HotStar.net> writes:
>It is my experience that any secret organization that has a name is a pretty 
>poor secret organization. The best secret organization is named after the 
>fact, and does not, under any circumstances, call themselves Illuminati, 
>Templars, Hospitallers, Star Chamber or such.

The Templars and Hospitallers didn't start out as secret organisations.
It's pretty plausible that organisations resembling them will have some
high-sounding names.

>If they have a name it is probably something like the CEO's Glee Club or 
>The Municipal Committee for Progress

_GURPS Illuminati_ has a sample secret organisation called TRI, which stands
for "Three Random Initials". 

John P. Raynor writes:
>Would a group of 20th century Americans name a secret society after some 
>ancient Assyrian group? 

I see nothing inherently strange about that notion. Provided they were
setting out to be a pseudo-secret (a "let's pretend" sort of) organisation
to start with. If they grew into one, they'd propably have some utterly
mundane name.

>Yes, they need a new NAME - I agree, calling 'em "Templars" is silly - but
>I think a "Templar-esque Order" dating back to the Fall of the Rule of
>Man, or the bleakest times of the Long Night, is entirely plausible,
>provides enough of a "swashbuckling romanic aura"

If organized as an order of knights dedicated to keeping open the starlanes, 
they might've called themselves the "Knights Stellar".


      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: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 19:28:37 -0500
From: "Michael L. Galligan" <teflonkid@voyager.net>
Subject: Subject: Re: off topic - bookstore

> On 03/27/97 at 11:58 PM,  shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) said:
> So, where is "the biggest and best used bookstore in th world" located? And
> does it have a web site?

There is a five story warehouse in Detroit called John King Books.  I
don't know if this is the largest or best, but I go there and enjoy
being surrounded by five stories of antiquity.  Ahh, the smell alone is
worth the trip.  Nothing like many old books under one roof.

Teflonkid out.

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

Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 18:46:04 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: off topic

On Sun, 30 Mar 1997 CardSharks@aol.com wrote:
> 
> The month before Red October was published, I met Tom Clancy at a game
> convention (he was therewith Larry Bond). Tom passed out bound galleys of Red
> October (that, I guess, is a pre-first edition).
> 
> We played a Harpoon scenario trying to get the Red October past and Alpha and
> into port. Afterwards, he inscribed my copy to the character / role I
> played.. Marko Ramius.

Ok, Marc wins this round of bragging rights...;-)

BTW...did you make it into port?

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 19:01:26 -0800
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Re: Whats in a name?

>From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
>
>   It occurs to me that the name "Solomon" comes from a hebrew root
>   meaning "peace".  This was one of my guesses as to the meaning of the
>   root that originally produced "Solomani".  One might imagine, though,

I always thought that it came from the hit single of the 1960s C.E. that was enjoying a 
revival:  "Soul Man".  ("I'm just a souuul man...." or something like that.)

Thus the images that Hiroshi was seeking to convey were several:  (1) the Solomani have 
soul -- they're not heartless corporate automatons like the Vilani; (2) the Solomani 
have roots -- their theme song is really old; and (3) the Solomani are up to date -- 
their ancient theme song is really popular right now.  Maybe a fourth point is that the 
Solomani are men (and women), not sexless corporate automatons like the Vilani.  

- --Glenn

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

Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 23:39:27 -0600
From: "K.C. Komosky" <umkomosk@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Subject: Sylea --> Capitol

     Here's a question: does anyone know when Sylea was renamed as Capitol? Od does anyone have any educated guesses when this might
happen?

K.C. Komosky
umkomosk@cc.umanitoba.ca

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

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 05:50:17 -0500 (EST)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: Much Ado About Starship Design

In a message dated 97-03-29 18:02:46 EST, you write:

> 
>  1)  Marc Miller and Guy "Wildstar" Garnett are currently working on a 
>  revised QSDS, to be included in T4 Deluxe.  This will be the central ship 
>  design system for Traveller.
>  
>  
an excerpt from the QSDS charts (draft):

     QSDS
     The Quick Ship Design System (QSDS) provides the ability to design
spacecraft, starships and small craft for Traveller quickly (a typical design
takes less than 30 minutes) and easily. The system is based on standardized
components which are selected from lists. So long as the components selected
do not exceed the capacity of the hull, the ship design is acceptable.
     QSDS provides for design of craft and ships of 10 tons or more, and up to
5,000 tons. It does not allow for customized ship components.
     QSCS. Ships designed using QSDS resolve combat based on the Quick Ship
Combat System (QSCS).

STARSHIPS AND SPACECRAFT 
     A craft is any space vehicle. A ship is at least 100 tons. A small craft is
any craft under 100 tons.
A spacecraft is any craft capable of travelling between worlds.A starship is
any ship fitted with a jump drive.
All starships are spaceships; not all spacecraft are starships.

<snip>

SPACE COMBAT RANGES
Range     Name Value
     6    Distant / Boarding  5 km
     7    VDistant  50 km
     8    Regional  500 km
     9    Continental    5,000 km
     10   Planetary 50,000 km
     11   Far Orbit 500,000 km
     12   Interplanetary 1 AU
     13   Outsystem 10 AU
     14   Oort 100 AU
     Subtract 6 from range number to determine the number of range bands between
two ships.

<snip>

STANDARD COMPONENTS
     The QSDS design sequence uses standard components. Only the specific prices
and details can be used (components cannot normally be purchased
fractionally). 
Tech Level: Ships and ship components are assigned tech levels (which reflect
the level of technology required for repair). Standardized components are
available regardless of the tech level of the world on which the building
shipyard is located. Similarly, replacement standardized components are
available regardless of the tech level of the world on which the repair
facility is located.

QSDS standard components up to TL 12 are typically available for repair
installation at any class A or B starport, or for construction at any class A
starport. QSDS components above TL 12 are available only at the appropriate
level starport with an appropriate TL.

STANDARD MISSIONS
     The mission of the ship being designed is the primary purpose for which it
is constructed. Typical missions and their requirements are:
     Passenger. Carries passengers.
     Trade. Carries speculative cargoes.
     Transport. Carries freight for profit.
     Survey. Surveys unknown systems.
     Scout. Explores unknown systems.
     Patrol. Conducts military missions.
     Tramp. Outfitted for a variety of trade missions.
     Yacht. Outfitted for luxury voyages.

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

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 08:00:23 -0600 (CST)
From: "Peter  H. Brenton" <pete@cummings.uchicago.edu>
Subject: A few questions.. and a long rant [response]

On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, JayStr wrote:

> More questions for the Trav-guru community, along with much grousing at
> the end:
> 
> 1) For an upcoming adventure, I want to build a killer satellite that
> employs a kinetic-kill weapon (i.e. a 'rock dropper'). How do I use FF&S
[snip]
 
I would use the rules for making a Mass Driver and place it in a ship with
no jump drive, no crew, a good sized computer and next-to-no manuver
drive.  I'm not sure how big a 'rock dropper' you want, but if you
accellerate it to the likely terminal velocity in atmosphere, and make it
a 2 ton piece of molybdenum coated iron ("relativistic crowbar"...well,
far from relativistic, but fast anyway), ou can do some serious damage to
anything on the ground (building sized, not city sized).  

> 
> 2) When a ship jumps, is there any way in the Traveller universe to
> detect its heading -- not how far it jumped, but merely its last known
[snip]

Canonically - I believe - no.  In practice, if you know the range of the
vessel you can make good guesses.  If you are the GM I'm sure you can come
up with something.  In my Traveller Universe there is a way; The ship has
to point in the direction of the destination.  Quite simple really.

> 3) I've asked four times now with no results. Can anyone tell me if
> there is a system for converting FF&S/TNE character & hardware stats to
> T4. Yes or no. If yes, where is it?

I have seen a character translator here I think.  Hardware translators I
have not. 

> 4) OK.... I checked out IG's web site again, and the Naval Architect's
> Handbook is back. Again. Will somebody for Christ's sake PLEASE tell me
[snip]
> hell is going ON?

I'll let Joe Walsh answer that one.

I do not mean to imply, in the rest of my response to your Rant, that
ranting is not allowed.  That said;

> And pursuant to the above (RANT FILTERS ON):
> 
[big snip of lots of good points]
> 
Well, you ask if we should debate or discuss game mechanics, but the
implied question that you are ranting over is whether IG will ever get its
act together.  Of course we should discuss game mechanics, but to the
other question;

Is it time to pick up this thread again already?

I think not.

We faced the same question about 3-4 months ago on this list.  At that
time, a few souls suggested that ranting about the game as published and
IG was taking up the entire productive time of the list, and they were
quite right.  I believe you were here then and perhaps had the experience
I did of deleting 90% of the list traffic without reading it.

From that or after that, came the THUDDD Contests, possibly (IMHO) the
most productive ship building time of the list (aside from Rob Prior's
single handed MT design plethora).  Many other interestin rules and
designs also came up.  The Ken Whitman bashing and IG bashing was, by
mutual agreement, put off 'til later. 

It was thought that Courtney Soloman and crew needed some time.  Time to
take over, time to put out a few products and prove their worth.

Since then we've had only 4 products.  There has yet to be a major
overhaul of the basic systems.  Folks, its only been *4 Months*.  If we
really want to give them time to get their ducks in a row I think we'll
need to wait some more.  They must deal with what has been published
before them, and that ain't no picnic.

In the meantime they have given us what I think are three out of four good
products (the fourth being First Survey, which arrived decidly broken).
This gives me hope and buys them more time on my account.    

I encourage working with the game mechanics and posting alternate rules.
this may in fact work its way into some second edition basic rulebook
(there is one of those coming out though, right?).  I think this list is
and continues to be an incubator and source for material in the game.  It
requires quite a bit of fixing and adapting before being published (which
I am not certain all the book publishers/editors know at IG) but if that
weren't true, why would we need a publisher?

Pete

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

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 08:42:16 -0600 (CST)
From: "Peter  H. Brenton" <pete@cummings.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...

On Sun, 30 Mar 1997, Anders Backman wrote:

> >The potentiometer required would have to have windings of wire *thicker*
> >than the rails. Otherwise you'd lose to much current (or just plain
> >*melt* them). We're talking about something like 100 amps (probably
> >*more*). The wires from the powerpack to the rails are going to be
> >about as thick as a pencil.
> 
> Can we say superconducting?
> 
So a gauss weapon (specialized) that fires at this velocity keeps its ammo
in a liquid nitrogen cooled container?  Cool, even if somewhat less
practical.

Pete

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 01:48:46 -0500
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: Templars

Dear Charlie:=20

You must read this. I have uncovered some startling information. The
files have been erased, but I have been able to piece this much
together. DO NOT ASK ME HOW I GOT THIS. My life is in danger! Only you
will know what to do with this information. Remember how we used to
laugh about all the conspiracy theories? Well, just read this. I will
contact you in a few days

Your Friend

Chief Harshman
113-1109
__________________________________________________________________
Download File=85=20
Error=85
Attempting reconstruction=85
FILE 4% COMPLETE:

=85Templars have been working since the dawn of=20
=85considered a myth,
=85conspiracy extending back over 5000 years=85=20
=85a rumor based on overactive imaginations.=20
=85dark designs on the Iridium Throne...=20

=85founded and began their operations in Jerusalem=20
=85knightly order of the time...
=85became truly staggeringly wealthy, attracting the avarice and fear of=85
=85finally crushed the=20
=85Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Master of the=20
=85burning at the stake in Paris, he is said to have pronounced a terribl=
e
curse on
=85were dead, along with the=85=20
=85more than four centuries later=85
=85voice from the crowd shouted "Jacque de Molay, thou art avenged!"=20
=85long memories, and lots of patience...=20

=85survivors were brought before religious courts of inquiry=20
=85deity named 'Baphomet' and a relic called 'Caput LVIII M"=20
=85rendering of a male human head.=20
=85never accounted for
=85an Ancient artifact=85
=85based on psionic teachings.=20
=85alien Templars as=85=20

=85First Imperium never expanded in Corridor=20
=85all of this is merely a veil for=20
=85death as the penalty for=20
=85ruthlessly efficient=20
=85the ship disappears forever=20
=85unsuspected heights of acuity and power.=20
=85himself was directly informed or not remains a mystery.=20

=85a Rule of Man organization, acting=85
=85investigating the reasons =20
=85the first Solomani megacorp=85
=85in the hands of the nobility
=85fund the "police actions"..=20
=85information and influence.=20
=85fiercely independent, exceedingly Solomani culture=20
=85result of 2000 years=20
=85went underground=85

=85the Darrians=20
=85tragic 'accident'
=85Emperor destroyed them.=20
=85with their relic=85=20

=85Solomani colonize next worlds=20
=85slower than light travel from Earth
=85despite the difficulties of crossing the Great Rift=20
=85a mad dash for the contested=20
=85determined to expand to Spinward
=85who believe the secret
=85cause of the Psionic Suppressions...=20
=85communicate across interstellar distances without resorting=85=20
=85possible that the Long Night=85

=85Several Tigresses [dreadnought class ships; 500 ktons] have been
deployed =85
=85are ringed by Imperial Navy bases sitting on Amber Zone worlds.=20
=85have bases everywhere.=20
=85guilty of crimes against humanity=20
=85well organized=20
=85Spinward

FILE END>>>

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1116
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Monday, March 31 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1117



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

T4 Deluxe, Emperor's Aresenal, Etc.
APRIL THUDDD Announcement
Re: off topic - bookstore
Re: QSDS and Fission Power Plants
Re: off topic - bookstore
Re: T4 Deluxe, Emperor's Aresenal, Etc.
A few questions.. and a long rant [response]
Solomani expansions
Different Characters
Prizes!
Prize taking
Loren's AOL account & Misjump!
Foundation.
<STOP PRESS - DEATH OF EMPEROR>
Traveller Atlas: AtariST Emulation on Mac 
Re: Prize taking (Boarding Action)
Re: Templars

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

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 10:35:43 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: T4 Deluxe, Emperor's Aresenal, Etc.

T4 Deluxe
- ---------

T4 Deluxe is being prepared by Marc Miller, with assistance from Guy
Garnett on the revised QSDS rules.  

In preparing T4 Deluxe, Marc is taking the original T4 book as a basis.
He is then ensuring that all the typographical and grammatical errors
are fixed. Also, on a system-by-system basis, he is making sure
everything works properly, is clearly written, and is optimally liad out
(i.e., if you read the text once, you should be able to follow the
tables with ease every time thereafter).  

Specific systems to be changed include:

Character Generation:  Pre-career options, such as college and military
academies are being changed to make more sense, offer more
differentiation, and so on.  Careers will each take up one full page,
and will include all the information necessary to creating a character. 
The "homeworld generation" tables will be changed completely; you will
roll up the homeworld's *trade codes*, and work with the referee from
there to determine which specific world the character came from (there
will be assistance provided for this in the tables - i.e., it won't
leave you with a character that must have come from a world out in the
Massilia Sector when your campaign is in the Core sector). 

Tasks:  We've all seen the new task system by now.  The progression is
2D/2.5D/3D/4D/5D.  Tasks are expressed in a specific format.  And so on,
as given in Marc's post from a few weeks ago.

Skills:  The skill tables will be restated to also show skills grouped
by which characteristic each is related to.  That is, there will be a
column showing all skills that use Strength as a basis, then another
column showing all skills that use Dexterity as a basis, and so on. 
Also, Marc will ensure that no one characteristic has significantly more
skills than the others (i.e., Edu in the current T4 edition).

Personal Combat: I don't know what changes will be made to this, but
given some of the changes in the task system, this will have to be
changed at least slightly as well.  Also, we know Marc will have better,
more complete, tables for combat.

Vehicles:  Lots more vehicles.  You saw the list Marc posted to the
list.  There will be vehicle cards included in the volume (like the ones
included in Belters and Tarsus) that will work as handouts, providing
all the data necessary for each vehicle.

QSDS:  You've seen what he's doing here.  Making it work better, make
more sense, and so on.

QSCS:  You've also seen some of this.  He's making a rational combat
system that allows players to quickly resolve space combat.

Psionics:  There will be a restatement of this chapter as well.  Also,
the arbitrary limit of 6 on psionic discipline skills will be abolished.

Animal Encounters: Marc will restate this chapter to include rules for
animals attacking humans.  The original T4 volume provides no rules for
this.

Every Adventure Begins and Ends at a Starport: you've seen a draft of
this chapter; it was posted a couple of weeks ago.  Essentially, it
states that the starport is the starting line and finish line of every
adventure.  It also provides details on what sort of facilities are in
existence on starports.

That's all I know about T4 Deluxe at this point.  Look for additional
rules draft postings by Marc Miller - and be sure to comment on them!


Emperor's Arsenal, Game Screen
- ------------------------------

Both of these products shipped at the end of last week.  These are the
first two products produced entirely under the new management and game
design process. You'll see lots of changes to the presentation of the
material, especially tables.


Pocket Empires, JTAS 26
- -----------------------

The final changes to Pocket Empires are being completed today (i.e., the
last few things Marc wanted changed).  Tomorrow it will go off to get a
final copy edit, then into typesetting, layout, and finally to the
printer. It will be shipped in April.

JTAS 26 is complete except for the cover art. It will be shipping in
April as well.


On the Horizon
- --------------

Anomalies is very close to being completed (the writing stage anyway). 
Psionic Institutes is more than 1/3 written.


- -Joe

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

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 12:05:09 -0600
From: Paul Walker <tiger@goldinc.com>
Subject: APRIL THUDDD Announcement

In a press release from the headquarters of QuipTech Industries, Director
Savant released the next ship design for the Official THUDDD competition.

- ---Sylea   090-21---

The tallying of the votes for future ship designs has taken somewhat longer
than we had originally anticipated, but I'm proud to announce that we are
ready for the next design competition.

For the next two weeks (until 103-21) we will accept designs that are
submitted for the next competition.  After that time, all entries will be
posted and the voting will begin for another two weeks (until 117-21) at
which time the winner will be tabulated and announced.

We have determined that a new voting system will be more appropriate and we
will be announceing more about that in the future as the time for votes gets
closer.  As always, it is expected that designs will follow the format
listed by the Wildstar Foundation for Standards in Imperial Shipbuilding.
If anyone is unaware of these standards, QuipTech is able to provide them at
no charge, simply send a request to tiger@goldinc.com and the information
will be forwarded.

Now, for the moment you have been waiting for, the next design parameters.
The next ship design will be for a standard patrol cruiser.  Design
parameters are:

# Must be capeable of standing alone against groups of pirate/raiding vessels.

# Must be able to work in conjunction with larger fleet actions.

# Must be capeable of wilderness refueling (Either directly or small craft)

# Must be cost effective (not necessarily cheap or inexpensive).

# Must be under 600 disp tons.  This requirement has been placed on the
designs in order to facilitate rapid construction of this vessel to help
assist in quenching piracy in the rapidly expanding imperium.  (ie. smaller
vessels can be built faster.)

# Required Minimums:
      Jump:  2                     Maneuver:  2
     Cargo:  Minimal          Carried Craft:  As Needed
   Offense:  Above Average          Defense:  Superior
      Crew:  Must have full medical facility.
             Must provide quarters for additional command personnell.  
                   (For inspections, and transport)

- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

Well, there it is folks.  I think it is pretty self evident when you get
through the role-playing.  The 600-dt limit makes sense to me, if everyone
else hates it, well, you are the voters.

Also, I read VERY VERY few TML's any more, so please direct questions
directly to me.  I cannot promise that they will be answered otherwise.

    Paul {tiger}
     tiger@goldinc.com
     http://www.goldinc.com/~tiger

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

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 10:53:36 -0800 (PST)
From: "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: off topic - bookstore

Does half this mailing list live in Portland?  Cool, yep, I'm here to and
am in full agreement, Powell's is truly amazing.  The SF section has a
truly dizzying number of books. 


- -John Snead jsnead@netcom.com

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

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 14:31:51 -0500
From: Chatham Ewing <cbe2866@is4.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: QSDS and Fission Power Plants

 

I'm curious. Does anybody know why starships includes fission power plants,
but fission is not included in either the QSDS in T4 or the QSD by Wildstar? 

I'm not complaining, I'm just curious.

Thanks,

C. Ewing
cbe2866@is4.nyu.edu

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

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 12:28:11 -0800
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: off topic - bookstore

At 10:53 AM 3/31/97 -0800, John R. Snead wrote:
>Does half this mailing list live in Portland?  Cool, yep, I'm here to and
>am in full agreement, Powell's is truly amazing.  The SF section has a
>truly dizzying number of books. 

Wasn't this list administered from Tektronix for many years?  That's where
I first encountered it back in the late '80s I think.  Anyway, that might
explain the high proportion of Portland people (or ex-Portland people).

- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

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

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 13:08:22 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: T4 Deluxe, Emperor's Aresenal, Etc.

At 10:35 AM 3/31/97 -0600, Joe brought us the word:

>T4 Deluxe
>---------

>In preparing T4 Deluxe, Marc is taking the original T4 book as a basis.
>He is then ensuring that all the typographical and grammatical errors
>are fixed. Also, on a system-by-system basis, he is making sure
>everything works properly, is clearly written, and is optimally liad out
>(i.e., if you read the text once, you should be able to follow the
>tables with ease every time thereafter).

Finally!  I'm going to vent to the list now, if this book has *any* errors,
that's it for me.  To Hades with twenty years of Traveller, I will not
continue to spend money on books that need revison immediately!

That feels much better, thank you.  

>Specific systems to be changed include:

>Skills:  The skill tables will be restated to also show skills grouped
>by which characteristic each is related to.  That is, there will be a
>column showing all skills that use Strength as a basis, then another
>column showing all skills that use Dexterity as a basis, and so on. 
>Also, Marc will ensure that no one characteristic has significantly more
>skills than the others (i.e., Edu in the current T4 edition).

I hope he includes a bit about the creative use of different characteristics
with skills.. i.e. using Using INT with Heavy Weapons to figure out how to
fire the Zhodani plasma gun.

>Personal Combat: I don't know what changes will be made to this, but
>given some of the changes in the task system, this will have to be
>changed at least slightly as well.  Also, we know Marc will have better,
>more complete, tables for combat.

Two words: Greg Porter.  Let Greg at the system, and we'll have something to
be proud of.  What combat needs is a quick-kill rule, deterioration of
wounds, and a basic hit location system.  We can always write some advanced
combat rules later, but these are the minimums.

>Psionics:  There will be a restatement of this chapter as well.  Also,
>the arbitrary limit of 6 on psionic discipline skills will be abolished.

Good, especially with all the talk of Conspiracy telepaths going around...

>JTAS 26 is complete except for the cover art. It will be shipping in
>April as well.

I wonder iof my adventure got into it.. I know they bought it, and I could
use the money :)

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   clown outfits.       -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 21:10:11 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: A few questions.. and a long rant [response]

On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, JayStr wrote:

> 3) I've asked four times now with no results. Can anyone tell me if
> there is a system for converting FF&S/TNE character & hardware stats to
> T4. Yes or no. If yes, where is it?

You could try reverse engineering the MT to TNE characters rules in
Survival Margin. On the hardware rules, I can't help.


- --------------- Dom Mooney (dom@cybergoths.u-net.com)---------------
"The fall of Empire, Gentlemen, is a massive thing, however, and not easily
fought. It is dictated by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a
freezing of caste, a damming of curiousity - a hundred other factors."
Seldon

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

Date: 31 Mar 97 16:18:02 EST
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Solomani expansions

>> I remember the rationale for the Zhodani Core 
Expeditions - an Ancient   artifact callin' them home - but 
did anybody explain why the Solomani   would have gone to 
the effort of exploring out towards the rim?   Especially 
so _far_ ! <<

Yeah. Unclaimed resources! The Confederation has the 
Imperium "above" it, the Aslan to the left and the Hivers 
to the right (sounds like a squaredance!) "Down", as far as 
I know, there's no empire. So they can bibble off exploring 
and claiming without starting wars.  They can boldly go 
where no (solo)man has gone before! 

Something that all the major empires _except_ the Imperium 
can do; the Imperium's hemmed in and can't expand. Maybe 
that's why it was doomed, Capn' Mainwaring.

A great place to set scouting/first contact adventures. You 
could have civilizations that have never heard of Imperia 
1-3 _or_ the Ancients. Daleks? Nah! Too silly. But you get 
my drift.

[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]
| Hugh Foster                                 100326,446       |
|   http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Hugh_Foster     |
| Never cry over spilt milk.  It could've been whiskey.        |
[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]

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

Date: 31 Mar 97 16:18:05 EST
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Different Characters

>> That's one of the things I like best about TNE...at last 
you  didn't have a bunch of PC's who were ALL  
ex-squids/grunts/gyrenes/scoutscum. Various CT supplements 
did have varied  career paths (Citizens of the Imperium, 
IIRC), but TNE had a huge list,  pages of them all with 
generation sequence...hell you could be a  bricklayer if 
you really wanted to (well, they called it construction  
worker ;-)          

One of the better TNE ideas that didn't make it into T4. <<

They're a snap to convert, though. We never "upgraded" to 
either TNE or T$ (Wow! There's a Freudian Slip typo!!!), 
remaining with a melange of CT, MT and house rules. When 
TNE came out and I bought it, one of the things I didn't 
say "Euch!" about was the spread of character careers. 
Modifying them into Basic MT generation sequences was no 
sweat at all; can't be much harder to port them into T4.

O'course, software to do it all available free at my website! :)

[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]
| Hugh Foster                                 100326,446       |
|   http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Hugh_Foster     |
| A nation is a society united by a delusion about its'        |
| ancestry and a hatred of its' neighbours. (Dean Inge)        |
[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]

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

Date: 31 Mar 97 16:18:09 EST
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Prizes!

>> This would seem to be a natural addition to Traveller:  
PCs with Scoutships  or other mercenary craft could seek 
and be given letters of Marque, and  those in active duty 
would be encouraged to fight more strenuously for  
promotion and their increased share of prizes. <<

Indeed, yes! This has happened several times in my 
campaign, with my characters being "drafted" (reactivated) 
and being sent somewhere to do something interesting. In 
each case, they've captured a capital ship (slightly used!) 
and recieved a payoff from the Navy. Big wodges of dosh, in 
fact. I Think I need to review my percentages....


>> Regarding the effectiveness of real martial arts:  I 
believe you have forgotten several of the basic rules  1) 
bigger IS stronger  2) do not fight unarmed against armed 
and  3) ninja-schminja, ya can't karate chop a bullet    I 
believe in the art of ching-chunk (sound of SMG being cocked) <<

With you 95%; however, Ninjutsu IIRC is "the art of 
invisibility" rather than a chop-socky fighting style. That 
being the case, a successful ninja is not going to be 
visible to be shot at. How he uses this temporary advantage 
is up to him, of course. Perhaps blowgun a soluble gelatin 
dart of fugu poison through the open ringpull hole of your 
beer can and sashay outta there?

This ain't D&D and "the winner" ain't neccessaily the best 
toe2toe walloper. Though it usually is! :)

[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]
| Hugh Foster                                 100326,446       |
|   http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Hugh_Foster     |
| Never contend with a man who has nothing to lose.            |
[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]

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

Date: 31 Mar 97 16:18:12 EST
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Prize taking

>> Mike, I've been promoting this idea for a long time.  
You're going to hear  that it won't work in Traveller, 
because the weapon systems in the game  will turn a 
defeated ship into a cloud or vapor...or a hunk of useless  
junk...not worth capturing or refitting.      I obviously 
don't agree.  ;-> I want Letter's of Marque, boarding 
actions,  and Prize Ships in my games!    I think the trick 
is to arrange things so that ship systems can be "knocked  
out" without being destroyed.  If you can temporarily 
silence a ship's guns  and maneuver drive, you can call on 
your victim to surrender...or board,  and take her if she 
refuses. <<

Well, the combat rules we use (this bit comes from MT IIRC) 
have the notes that (I forget the details) damaged systems 
can be repaired in one (ship) combat round if you have a 
full damage control team. So it must be possible to repair 
ship systems "in the field". 

The only two that _have_ to be fixed in order to get a 
prize home are the M and J drives. Life support can be 
replaced by having your prize crew live in vacc suits for 
the trip home - hefty bonuses make it tolerable! The 
computer can be swapped for one of your spares, or even one 
from an auxiliary vessel; or the jump co-ords can be worked 
out by the capturing vessel and fed over to the J-drive. 
Guns won't be needed before you reach a shipyard.

And even after a few critical hits, a starship 
hull-and-surviving bits is still worth a smegging fortune 
if you can get it home!

[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]
| Hugh Foster                                 100326,446       |
|   http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Hugh_Foster     |
| Nothing is good in moderation.  You cannot know good in      |
| anything until you have torn the heart out of it by excess.  |
[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]

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

Date: 31 Mar 97 16:18:16 EST
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Loren's AOL account & Misjump!

>> Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 09:35:05 -0500 (EST)  
>> From: GDWGAMES@aol.com  
>> Subject: none    

Liam said:    >If you don't need to fight (as in defending 
someone else), then the best  defense  > is to not be 
there.    Yep. Best Armor is a couple of light years...     
 Loren Wiseman        GDW Emeritus   <<

Hey, Loren, does this mean you got the GDW AOL account as a 
mustering-out benefit from the old mob? :)

>> However, someone from IG recently  told me that, yes, 
this is correct and it does mean that even a perfectly  
maintained and operated ship has a 1/36 chance of 
misjumping. Unless I  misunderstand something, this is bad. 
   Since practically no ships carry enough fuel for a 
second jump, since the  probability of misjumping to within 
maneuver drive range of a fuel source  is nil, and since 
most ships don't have the power or supplies for  
interstellar travel with maneuver drives, ships that 
misjump are  effectively lost. <<

Not entirely true. Human ingenuity has a lot of ways to get 
round this. 1) The ship's auxiliaries will all have fuel 
which can be siphoned into the jump tank. 2) The 
maneuver/plant fuel will be seperately stored to J fuel and 
can have some transferred - you don't need the power plant 
capacity your weapons require if you're doing an emergency 
jump. I design my ships with two Durations - one armed and 
one with weapons and screens.  3) There are many sources of 
water aboard a ship in emergencies. Apart from the LS 
complement of water, there are cargoes and there is the 
inevitable crates of beer for the PCs. Dump all that 
straight in the purifier. Tank of fish in the captain's 
cabin (a la Jean-Luc Picard)? In the purifier. Bowls of 
fruit? Juice 'em and strain 'em.

Sooner or later, you can rustle up enough fuel for one jump 
to safety. 

Added to all this, given the known properties of misjump, I 
refuse to believe that Jump fuel isn't sectioned into 
seperate Jump-1 tanks. So unless you're at maximum jump, 
there will be more fuel available.

Most of the "excitement" of misjumps should come from the 
"where the hell are we?" bit and the "how badly damaged are 
the J drives?" bit.

Having said all this I still agree that properly maintained 
ships running purified fuel should only misjump about 1 in 
100 or so. Then again, what's the chance of an accident and 
injury in a car journey today? Yet we still use cars!

[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]
| Hugh Foster                                 100326,446       |
|   http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Hugh_Foster     |
| The good die young - because they see it's no use living if  |
| you've got to be good. (John Barrymore)                      |
[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]

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

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 21:21:09 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Foundation.

Following all those comments on books (Norton and Azimov), I picked up
Foundation for the first time in about ten years and started back in. Wow!
I forgot just how many Traveller ideas could be attributed to it (Imperium,
Cleon, psychohistory, the collapse of the (vilani) empire).

Oh yes. The best second hand bookshop - it's in Whitehaven, West Cumbria
(UK), and called "Michael Moons".

- --------------- Dom Mooney (dom@cybergoths.u-net.com)---------------
"The fall of Empire, Gentlemen, is a massive thing, however, and not easily
fought. It is dictated by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a
freezing of caste, a damming of curiousity - a hundred other factors."
Seldon

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

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 21:28:19 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: <STOP PRESS - DEATH OF EMPEROR>

Breaking news from the Xboat network - the Emperor was murdered by Archduke
Dulinor during an audience in the Throne room, on Capital. Dulinor then
claimed the throne by right of assassination. The succession has yet to be
confirmed by the Moot. Imperial sources have indicated that the fleet is
being mobilised to crush the usurper, in a campaign that is not expected to
take less than six months.


















Okay, so I just noticed that the last Digest I got was number 1116.  ;-)

- --------------- Dom Mooney (dom@cybergoths.u-net.com)---------------
"The fall of Empire, Gentlemen, is a massive thing, however, and not easily
fought. It is dictated by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a
freezing of caste, a damming of curiousity - a hundred other factors."
Seldon

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 00:36:50 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Traveller Atlas: AtariST Emulation on Mac 

Dear all,

Some musings on using an ST Traveller Sector etc. viewer.

I downloaded the ST emulator for the Mac as suggested. Takes about 15 min
with a 28.8k modem. Decompressed fine, so I launched it up with David
Burden's Atlas v0.3 in the floppy drive in ST High mod. Worked fine.
Transfered the files to the Hard disk - had a slight problem with that -
the version of the program I have assumes that it's running on a floppy so
you have to manually redirect it to the sector files on the HD.

Anyway - it ran fine, and following checks *appears* to work great in up to
256 colours on a 68LC040 Powerbook @ 66 MHz. Can't say how it'll work on a
PPC Mac or a slower machine, but it was significantly faster than an ST. If
you've got a Mac it's worth looking at... IMO, although IIRC there are some
better programmes around that do the same thing. (If you find one, let me
know!)

Only other minor problem is that the software I downloaded is in German,
but if you experiment (or have used any modern ST programmes) you can
muddle through easily enough once you work out that apple-W gets you to the
finder (for setting changes) and that you have to select a 'shutdown'
command to exit.

Have fun! Dom





- --------------- Dom Mooney (dom@cybergoths.u-net.com)---------------
"The fall of Empire, Gentlemen, is a massive thing, however, and not easily
fought. It is dictated by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a
freezing of caste, a damming of curiousity - a hundred other factors."
Seldon

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

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 16:10:45 -0800
From: jdconnors@genmagic.com (joel connors)
Subject: Re: Prize taking (Boarding Action)

At 04:18 PM 3/31/97 EST, you wrote:
 ;-> I want Letter's of Marque, boarding 
>actions,  and Prize Ships in my games!    I think the trick 
>is to arrange things so that ship systems can be "knocked  
>out" without being destroyed.  If you can temporarily 
>silence a ship's guns  and maneuver drive, you can call on 
>your victim to surrender...or board,  and take her if she 
>refuses. <<
>

Greetings All,

First let me say until 9 months ago I hadn't even thought Traveller in over
ten years. In fact (sob) I sold my complete (Yes complete) original
collection at one point for the money. Nine months back a friend introduced
be to TNE, and an old friendship came back.

Now that aside, my questions are regarding Boarding actions inside Ship to
Ship combat. Roughly as stated in TNE, you may attempt to board once a
ship's maneuver drives are off line. This is all that is discussed regarding
the actual boarding section, as opposed to the taking of the ship.

My questions purpose, is to start a discussion about possible ways to board
a still moving ship.

Theory 2: If a missile can hit a moving ship, then a skilled pilot could
with work could get close enough to a ship to grapple (Mag grapples,
adhesive, old fashioned, whatever).

Theory 2: If you cannot see it, you cannot hit it, ergo you cannot dodge it.
Missiles are very fast moving no stealth applied spacecraft, that use some
manner of exhaust based thrust. It is possible to create rather fast moving
grav based space vehicles, this combined with stealth gear could create a
small enough profile to be unnoticed in a larger ship to ship combat. 

Given these theories it may be possible to get from one to five highly
trained troops onto the hull of an opposing starship. From there it is not a
mean feet to cause havoc of nearly any nature, given the right training and
equipment.


I am very interested in comments and tactical nukes. My goal is to devise as
realistic a scenario as possible. The best way is to shoot it full of holes
and patch it back to together with the leftovers.

Best,
Joel Connors
RPG Gamer since I was a wee lad, and now they make me wear a tie, to bad.

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

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 16:28:36 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Templars

At 03:56 PM 3/29/97 -0800, Richard Hough wrote:

>Calling them "Templars" may sound cool but is not very smart; many sophonts
>(especially PCs) will know about the historical Templars and will be
>instantly suspicious of any group using the name. Even calling the 'front'
>organization the Templars would be too obvious and arouse suspicions. More
>likely, "Templar" would be an epithet used by their political opponents.

I beleive that the name is just what we've been calling them.  It makes it
easy to refer to a common point.  since we are discussing a *secret*
society, I doubt that their enemies will be making many public calls against
them.

>I am very reluctant to make any of the innermost circle psionic; adding yet
>another psionic society after the Zhodani, Psionics Institute, Psionic
>Knights, and Droyne is risking overuse. It is also inconsistent; according
>to canon most Imperial society is very suspicious of psionic individuals.
>Why would a secret society be less suspicious than the rest of the
>populace? More likely, they would be even more vigilant agains psionic
>takeovers. Plot-wise, it is totally unnecessary to make any of the Templars
>psionic. A group of nobles with connections to the throne,
>megacorporations, military, and TAS is already plenty powerful enough.

The Templars were behind the Psionic Institutes; they served as a training
ground to identify the rare telepath who might be able to access the
Ancient's network.  Not that the prospect would know this.. his life would
be subtley manipulated and guided until he was ready to accept the risks of
connection.

The Droyne/Chirpers are naturally psionic, but remember that this fact isn't
well known even near the Imperium's fall!  Adventure 2 treats it as a
surprise that the Chirpers can turn invisible, and never mentions other
Chirper worlds.

There is no better way to hide your true power than to make it look like you
dislike the source of that power.  The Templars/Conspiracy use psionics for
a specific reason: discovering the secrets of the Ancients.  Their plots all
center around this, even if the connection isn't immediately clear.  At the
same time, they were probably behind the Psionic Supressions, simply because
the Institutes were getting to big to control, and the chance of a "rogue"
telepath connecting to the network and revealing its existance were rising.
Solution?  Make psionics anathema to Imperials.  Method?  Pull strings at
various levels to set the psychohistorical experiment that led to the
supressions in motion.. set up a few Institutes for a hard fall.. make sure
that a few unbalnced fanatics recieved training, and set them loose as
terrorists.  Bingo; withing 30 years the image of the psion will be the same
as a communist during the McCarthy era.

While any group can form a conspiracy, the point of the Templars, as Craig
and I have been developing them, is a conspiracy of historical scope.  If
you read the theories about the historical Templars and the Prieure du Sion,
and Scottish Rite Freemasons, etc; you see that it goes deep into many
strange stories and coinceidences.  The legend (or truth) is frightening to
behold, for the basic reason that it makes much of history a lie.  This is
the hook in the Traveller Templars.. this grand history reaching back over
2000 years, back to Old Earth, and a mysterious silver head..

>Nor do I have any intention of adding a galaxy-wide instantaneous psionic
>communication grid. This is completely non-canon and unbalances the game.
>Limited speed of communication is a fundamental aspect of the Traveller
>universe, and so far as I am aware even the Ancients did not have
>instantaneous communication. The Ancient base in Twilight's Peak certainly
>did not. The economic advantage of instantaneous interstellar communication
>is so overwhelming I cannot believe the Templars would not use it regularly
>with enormous charges. Even the knowledge that instantaneous communication
>is theoretically possible will affect research and commerce.

Well, first I feel compelled to point out that no one has said it is easy to
use the network.  I gave a figure of 1 in 1000 telepaths being able to even
access it without immediately going mad, and that thousand will chosen from
the top 1% of trained telepaths.

Also, it is clearly stated that every Ancient site used different
technology, down to simple things like fasteners.  Given that 421 different
Ancients created thousands of bases, I don't find it difficult to beleive
that Yaskodray at one point created a network to communicate with his kids,
even if they didn't bother building FTL commo of their own.

Let's say that you found an alien artifact.. an antimater powerplant.
simple to use, easy to maintain.  If you were to put it on the open market,
you'd be a billonaire in weeks; able to look down on Bill Gates as a pauper.
BUT.. this device is easily converted to a bomb.  A total converstion
weapon, hand grenades in the kiloton yield range.  Are you willing to risk
the devistation simply to get rich?

On the other hand, what do you think your life expectancy will be when Big
Oil learns you're about to put them out of business?

There are three reasons why the Templars aren't selling access to the network:

1> Network capable telepaths are rare, and burn out quickly.  The net is
used only for dire emergencies.

2> The network causes some of it's users to become quite powerful, and very
unstable.  The possibilty for wide scale destruction and death outweighs the
possible financial gains.

3> The loss of secrecy would destoy the Templars, something they find
unacceptable.

>The original Templar idea, that of a secret society which would protect
>weaker groups from rapacious PCs, seems to have grown into a gargantuan
>conspiracy so powerful there is little probability, and even less reason,
>that it remain secret. The proposed group could knock over the Third
>Imperium in an evening if it wanted to. Since it is so powerful any group
>of PCs would be little threat, it is also uninteresting drama-wise.

That must explain why the X-Files got cancelled after half a season.  

Seriously, there are times when secret societies remain quiet.  You seem to
believe that the Conspiracy could "knock over" the Third Imperium.  Who's to
say it didn't?  Olav hault-Plankwell was from the Spinward Marches.. what
possessed him to spend three years flying to Capital to take over the
Imperium?  Was he a pawn?  Might Dulinor have been a Templar, or a pawn,
when he shot the Stephon clone?  What if the Conspiracy knew that Strephon
was away, and deliberately timed the assassination for when it would cause
the most unrest?  The survival, and coronation, of Lucan put quite a crimp
in their plans, leading to the creation of the Brothers of Varian to try to
sl;ow down the pace of things while the Secret masters tried to salvage
something.

You want to know how easy it is to keep a secret?  In 1987, the 197th
Infantry Bde (my old unit), was scheduled to go to the National Training
Center at Ft. Irwin, Ca, for a regular training rotation.  During that
rotation, there was a vehicle accident that resulted in 7 deaths.

Sounds normal, right?  dig a little..  during the training cycle in
question, the OPFOR at Ft. Irwin had close to 35% of it's personnel on
leave.. hardly enough to run a 30 day cycle!  Also, at the same time, the El
Salvadoran Army launched an offensive against the FMLN.  A BBC camera crew,
covering the fighting, shot footage of a M1 tank moving up a road.  The
Salvadoran Army doesn't have M1s.  At the time, we were the only Army in the
world that did.

Those seven troops who died in the vehicle accident?  All were sent home in
sealed coffins, due to the alleged nature of the bodies.  The odd thing is,
all seven were from different units.  It's rare for an odd mix of troops
from different battalions and different ranks to end up in one vehicle together.

It seems that the US Army moved a brigade of mechanized infantry to Cental
America where it provided direct combat assitance to the Salvadoran Army in
their offensive.  I will not comment on the number of laws and treaties we
broke.

This story broke in 1993, during the debate over wether to award the Special
Forces who served in ES the Combat Infantry Badge.  It was promptly ignored.

If that can happen, I believe that the Templars are more than plausible.


- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   clown outfits.       -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1117
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Tuesday, April 1 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1118



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Hospitalers
Re: History of the Geonee, Part 1 (LONG)
Re: Hospitalers
Re: Traveller Atlas: AtariST Emulation on Mac
Re: Hivers
Re: closed systems
Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...
Re: T4 Deluxe, Emperor's Aresenal, Etc.
Re: Prize taking
Re: Templars
Re: T4 Deluxe, Emperor's Aresenal, Etc.
T4 Deluxe
Re: T4 Deluxe, Emperor's Aresenal, Etc.
Re: Hivers
[Fwd: When the Hivers got jump drive]
Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...
Re: off topic - bookstore
Re: KBv2.0
Re: T4 Deluxe, Emperor's Aresenal, Etc.
Re: T4 Deluxe, Emperor's Aresenal, Etc.
Re: KBv2.0
Re: History of the Geonee, Part 1
Re: Hospitalers
Adventure Writing Contest
AUCTION UPDATE #2

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

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 19:57:43 -0500 (EST)
From: GDWGAMES@aol.com
Subject: Hospitalers

Perhaps one of our UK contributors can correct me if I amm mistaken, but do
not the Hospitallers (sic?) still exist in Great Britain, under the name of
St John's Ambulance?

Loren Wiseman

     GDW Emeritus

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 23:29:28 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: History of the Geonee, Part 1 (LONG)

On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, Scott M Galliand wrote:

Doh!  Your quite right, my mistake.

Unless the Egyptians or Axtecs had spaceships:)

> 
> But you are assuming that the Vilani met the Geonee and the Solomani at
> roughly about the same time.  You should look at Carlos' timeline on my
> site.  If I remember from that and Carlos' recent article, the Vilani
> meet the Geonee around -8700 Imperial or thereabout.  At that time, the
> Solomani haven't even invented writing to record history yet (although I
> could be wrong).  I don't think we even had civilization yet.  By the
> time the Geonee are incorporated in the Ziru Sirka forcibly and the
> Vilani stop expansion, Terrans have barely discovered civilization.  By
> the time the Terrans visit Barnard's Star in the late 21st century Terran
> (in the  -2600s Imperial, if I remember correctly.  I don't have my books
> onhand), The Geonee have been members of the Ziru Sirka for almost 2000
> years.
> 
> So the term interstellar WOULD include Terra and the colonies, but not
> for almost 7 millenia after the first meeting of the Geonee and the
> Vilani.
> 
> Carlos, please correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> BTW, you can see Carlos' timeline in the Geonee Online Sourcebook at 
> 
> http://members.aol.com/sgalli5794/traveller/geonee/
> 
> Scott Galliand
> Archivist, Geonee Online Sourcebook
> 


c'ya hate to be ya,

michl

electric RAIN                      http://www.electric-rain.net/


experience is the mother of all knowledge.
madeleine L'Engle.

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 23:20:15 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Hospitalers

On Mon, 31 Mar 1997 GDWGAMES@aol.com wrote:

You shouldnt be asking an English men since they withdrew from the
Knighthood during the reformation.  You should ask a Maltese chap (like
myself) since they still operate in malta (there last home since 1440).

But i see what your getting at - I dont know about britain, but our
ambulence service is called St. Johns and we also use the symbol of the
Knighthood (Known as the Maltese cross, or the Cross of St.John) as 
the symbol for most medical agencies (and all agencies associated with the
Ambulance service like StJohns first aid etc, etc).

If you (or anyone) needs more information about the Knighthood or anything
related to them, your welcome to ask me since my hobby is military
history, especially when it concerns Malta/The Knights.


As a side note, i have noticed someone creating an "order" for traveller
based on the Templars.  I think it would make more sense if it was based
on the Hospitaliers, because the Templars were disbanded during the 1300
and most of there wealth/propety was given to the Hospitaliers.

It makes even more sense if the order operates with (or has its roots in)
the solomani rim.

My 2 credits :) 

> Perhaps one of our UK contributors can correct me if I amm mistaken, but do
> not the Hospitallers (sic?) still exist in Great Britain, under the name of
> St John's Ambulance?
> 
> Loren Wiseman
> 
>      GDW Emeritus
> 


Peace,

michl

electric RAIN                      http://www.electric-rain.net/


     Build a system that a fool can use and only a fool will use it.

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

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 18:25:53 -0800
From: "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller Atlas: AtariST Emulation on Mac

>Some musings on using an ST Traveller Sector etc. viewer.
>
>I downloaded the ST emulator for the Mac as suggested. Takes about 15 min
>with a 28.8k modem. Decompressed fine, so I launched it up with David
>Burden's Atlas v0.3 in the floppy drive in ST High mod. Worked fine.
>Transfered the files to the Hard disk - had a slight problem with that -
>the version of the program I have assumes that it's running on a floppy so
>you have to manually redirect it to the sector files on the HD.
>
>Anyway - it ran fine, and following checks *appears* to work great in up to
>256 colours on a 68LC040 Powerbook @ 66 MHz. Can't say how it'll work on a
>PPC Mac or a slower machine, but it was significantly faster than an ST. If
>you've got a Mac it's worth looking at... IMO, although IIRC there are some
>better programmes around that do the same thing. (If you find one, let me
>know!)

The emulator works just fine on my 604e/180 PowerMac.  I haven't tried
running anything, for the simple reason all I've got is the emulator (I
collect them for some wierd reason, never know when you might need to run a
piece of VIC-20 software).

I've got to agree about the German menu's being annoying, one of these
day's I'm going to have to break down and learn German.  I keep running
into software or documentation that is only available in it.


               Zane


| Zane H. Healy                    | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh@ix.netcom.com (primary)  | Linux Enthusiast          |
| healyzh@holonet.net (alternate)  | Mac Programmer            |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------+
| For Empire of the Petal Throne, and Traveller Role Playing   |
| see http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/                      |

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 23:42:50 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Hivers

On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 GDWGAMES@aol.com wrote:

Hmm why? why not insect?

Ive noticed that there are no insect liek lifeform nor tree like lifeform.
Is there a reason for this?

thanks

> Andrew Boulton (in response to someone else):
> 
> >>  Oh, despite their names, the Hivers do not live in hives, and are not at 
> >> all what that name might imply (bringing to mind bees and other mindless 
> >> insects).
> >
> >ISTR they were originally going to be insects. Marc?
> 
> Marc's original notion was for them to be avian (to put it simply), but he
> told me, John Harshman and Bill Keith to do whatever we wanted as long as
> they were _not_ insect-like.
> 
> Loren Wiseman
>     GDW Emeritus
>  
> 





Buson
DEMONIC
How the boisterous howls of winter swell,
Pelting pebbles against the temple-bell.

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 23:41:03 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: closed systems

On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, Mike Sellers wrote:

> I've got a question on closed systems, somewhat of a recap of what we
> discussed a while back.  
> 
> Does anyone know how much of a closed system modern subs are, for example,
> and for how long?  How efficiently do they recycle water, and what do they
> do with all their waste from grease to feces -- do they just _dump_ it in
> the deep???  Do subs grow any food at all, or is it all prepackaged?
> 
> Any info like this would be a big help.  Thanks.


Dont know complete details but i know Nuclear subs are completely self
sufficient in every aspect execept food and ammo.  They recycle air, and
the power supply works like a car, goes on for ever until you run out of
fuel, but there fuel is nuclear energy which lasts so long that the vessel
will rust before they run out of energy.

All the food is prepackaged.



Buson
DEMONIC
How the boisterous howls of winter swell,
Pelting pebbles against the temple-bell.

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

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 21:58:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...

In a message dated 97-03-31 11:21:07 EST, Peter Brenton writes:

>So a gauss weapon (specialized) that fires at this velocity keeps its ammo
>in a liquid nitrogen cooled container?  Cool, even if somewhat less
>practical.
Any idea at what tech level room temperature superconducter becomes possible?
dsf

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

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 20:38:32 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: T4 Deluxe, Emperor's Aresenal, Etc.

> Tasks:  We've all seen the new task system by now.  The progression is
> 2D/2.5D/3D/4D/5D.  Tasks are expressed in a specific format.  And so on,
> as given in Marc's post from a few weeks ago.

Marc should look at KBv2.0 as the new task system and get rid of 
that half die.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 22:09:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Re: Prize taking

In a message dated 97-03-31 18:54:12 EST, Hugh Foster writes:

>And even after a few critical hits, a starship 
>hull-and-surviving bits is still worth a smegging fortune 
>if you can get it home!
Hey! Find the key phrase in this snip! Yes, the last one! 
I can hear all of you out there cackling "Sure they can have the 'cruiser.
Without the guns. Hee Hee Hee"

Sound familiar Pete?
dsf

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

Date: Tue,  1 Apr 97 04:09:00 GMT 
From: s.johnson107@genie.com
Subject: Re: Templars

On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 21:37:16 +0000, Mused <marz@HotStar.net> wrote...

>    It is my experience that any secret organization that has a name is
> a pretty poor secret organization.
    In YOUR EXPERIENCE?!?  And how many secret organizations have you belonged
to then?!

> The best secret organization is named after the fact, and does not,
> under any circumstances, call themselves Illuminati, Templars,
> Hospitallers, Star Chamber or such.
    Unless it's requisite that they have a public identity, the CIA springs to
mind.  Or they're part of a Government and need an internal working name, the
NSA is a good example of this.

> If they have a name it is probably something like the CEO's Glee Club
> or The Municipal Committee for Progress
    ::chuckle::  I'll have to remember those. ;)

Stephen

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

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 97 23:18:37 -0600
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: T4 Deluxe, Emperor's Aresenal, Etc.

On 03/31/97 at 08:38 PM,  "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com> said:


> > Tasks:  We've all seen the new task system by now.  The progression is
> > 2D/2.5D/3D/4D/5D.  Tasks are expressed in a specific format.  And so on,
> > as given in Marc's post from a few weeks ago.

> Marc should look at KBv2.0 as the new task system and get rid of  that
> half die.

Marc,

I agree with Ken about the task system.  Yes, I have my own version of the
task system, but it doesn't look like you're interested in a slightly more
complicated system that includes an aptitide with each skill, so....the
simple alternative is Ken's KBv2.0.


Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 00:46:51 -0500
From: Mark Urbin <eclipse@ultranet.com>
Subject: T4 Deluxe

As part getting rid of the typos, IG must have recommisioned new art for
the small arms.




- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
eclipse@ultranet.com -- These opinions are mine, no one else wants `em.
"The President has kept all of the promises he intended to keep."
   - George Stephanopolous on "Larry King Live" - 2/16/96
               http://www.ultranet.com/~eclipse/
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 07:12:17 -0800
From: Harald Budschedl <Harald.Budschedl@mag.linz.at>
Subject: Re: T4 Deluxe, Emperor's Aresenal, Etc.

Douglas E. Berry wrote:
> 
> Finally!  I'm going to vent to the list now, if this book has *any* errors,
> that's it for me.  To Hades with twenty years of Traveller, I will not
> continue to spend money on books that need revison immediately!
> 

Hmmm...
I guess, you should become more clear about the fact, that even Marc is
only humam (is he really? ;-)), and it's part of the human nature to
make mistakes.
So please show more patience and understanding.

Thank U

BTW, It should be possible to get the Deluxe Version cheaper, if one has
already spent money for the original T4 rulebook.

CYA
Buddy

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 00:22:07 -0600 (CST)
From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com>
Subject: Re: Hivers

Quoth Solomani:
> Ive noticed that there are no insect liek lifeform nor tree like lifeform.
> Is there a reason for this?

For insects, there's a fairly obvious reason: the square-cube law
(structural area increases with the square of scaling (2x size means
4x support size) but volume to support increases with the cube (2x size
means _8x_ the mass to hold up!)) prohibits large (sentient-size) beings
equipped with exoskeletons.

As for "tree-like" beings, what about the much-discussed Hresh from ALIENS
ARCHIVE?  And the often-overlooked Ahetaowa from, er, some issue of
Challenge magazine in the mid- to late- 20's.

- ----------------------------*------------------------*------------------------
 Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett  |"Nullum magnum ingenium | GURPS fan, Amiga user,
http://www.io.com/~jlockett | sine mixtura dementiae | Shakespearean scholar,
  Email: jlockett@io.com    | fuit." -- Seneca       | actor and director.

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

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 22:44:39 -0800
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.com>
Subject: [Fwd: When the Hivers got jump drive]

This was inadvertently sent to the wrong address.  I hit the wrong name 
in my address book.

Glenn M. Goffin wrote:
> 
> >From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
> >Subject: Re: Templars
> >
> >I'm working up a timeline for the illuminated Traveller universe, I'll put
> >it up on my web page when i'm done.
> >
> >On that note, I need to find out when the Hivers got the jump drive..
> >anybody with Alien Module 7 help me out?
> 
> "The most significant of all dates in Hiver history in -4698 ...:  the year the first
> Hiver starship jumped to another star system."  Alien Module 7, Hivers, at 17.  It
> doesn't prove anything about Pabodie's expedition.
> 
> --Glenn

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

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 20:05:35 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...

In mail you write:

>>The potentiometer required would have to have windings of wire *thicker*
>>than the rails. Otherwise you'd lose to much current (or just plain
>>*melt* them). We're talking about something like 100 amps (probably
>>*more*). The wires from the powerpack to the rails are going to be
>>about as thick as a pencil.
>
> Can we say superconducting?

Since a potentiometer is a *variable resistor*, superconductors need
not apply. The wire used for the windings *must* have resistance (and a
fair amount of it) to be useful in varying the high current.

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

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

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 20:00:16 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: off topic - bookstore

In mail you write:

>>>I'm probably the only person in the world that would consider a good
>>>bookstore (new or used) a tourist spot, but I'd rather tour a bookstore
>>>than a canyon any day.
>
> Powell's is no mere tourist spot; it's more like a pilgrimage destination.
> I know many people who have gone to Portland, Oregon for a conference or
> something, only to come away raving about Powell's. :)
>
> What's worse, there are now, what, four or five Powells locations in and
> around PDX?   Siiiiigh.

According to my Powell's bookmark, they have *seven*....
Powell's City of Books (*the* Powell's)
Powell's Books at Cascade Plaza
Powell's Travel Store
Powell's Books at PDX
Powell's Technical Books
Powell's Books on Hawthorne
Powell's Nooks for Cooks & Gardeners

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

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

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 23:26:28 -0800
From: rdhough@orca.bc.ca (Richard Hough)
Subject: Re: KBv2.0

I suppose it's time to report how Ken Bearden's version 2.0 task system has
been doing in my campaign. Overall, very well. It handles a variety of
tasks at both large and small target numbers far better than the original
task system in the book. You may be interested to hear some of the effects
and rulings I have made using the system.

One thing I worried about that turned out not to be a problem was the
effect of using more dice with the published DMs. I thought the effect of a
1 DM would be diluted when using 4 or 5 dice instead of 2 or 3, but this
did not seem to happen. Perhaps because using more dice tends to favor
average rolls over the extremes, a DM of 1 seemed to have just as much
effect with many dice as with only a few. Or perhaps it's because players
always try to get favorable DMs no matter how many dice they roll against.

I considered using the tripled skill target number for DMs (like Leadership
for initiative rolls, Brawling for unarmed strikes, et al) and opposed
tasks, but this seemed to unbalance the results. This is probably for the
same reason that more dice did not dilute the effect of DMs significantly.
Whenever the rules suggest a DM based on a skill level, use the skill level
and not the tripled target number.

I don't recommend modifying the attribute or difficulty when using a skill
level of 0. KBv2.0 handles skill-0 fine without special rules, just roll
the normal number of dice against the relevant characteristic alone.

I strongly suggest using 2 dice for Easy tasks and not just assume the
character automatically succeeds. Wounded or handicapped characters should
have a chance to fail even Easy tasks. This is another example where the
existing T4 task system breaks down; a character with a characteristic and
skill of 2 will always succeed an Easy task with the T4 rules and
practically never succeed an Average task. In KBv2.0 the same character may
fail an Easy task but occasionally suceeds an Average task.

I suggest dividing each target number by the number of actions when
characters attempt multiple actions. The existing rule, which say to divide
only the characteristic, was workable when characteristics almost entirely
determine success, but with KBv2.0 the skill contribution must be divided
also. This gives better balance and is easier to calculate.

One problem I did run into is with spectacular results. The current rules
make spectacular success too unlikely and spectacular failure far too
common with a large number of dice. Also, there must be a higher chance to
spectacularly fail the more dice you roll, otherwise an Impossible task is
no harder than a  Difficult task for characters with high target numbers.
The rule I have been using is that rolling 3 or more ones on a task roll is
a spectacular success and rolling 3 or more sixes is a spectacular failure,
rolling more than 3 increases the effects of the success or failure.
Rolling the same number of ones as sixes does not give a spectacular result
(the two effects cancel each other out). One problem with this method is
that if a weak character ever succeeds a formidable task he does so
spectacularly. Similarly, a superior character only fails average tasks
spectacularly. I find this unrealistic, and clever players can use these
effects to figure out target numbers I want to keep secret. Lately I have
ruled that you must miss your target number in addition to rolling 3 or
more sixes to spectacularly fail; if you roll 3 sixes but the total is
below your target number it results in an ordinary failure.

Another rule I have been using is to increase a skill's target number and
not its level when a character succeeds an experience check. This provides
some variation in characters who otherwise have the same skills, and
reduces the effect of skill increase through experience, which is too
generous in my opinion. When the target number exceeds a multiple of 3, the
skill level is increased by 1.

IMHO, KBv2.0 is a vast improvement over the existing task system. Marc and
IG should seriously consider it for Traveller Deluxe.
- --
Richard (not an employee of KBv2.0, just a satisfied customer) Hough
rdhough@orca.bc.ca

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

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 08:12:13 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: T4 Deluxe, Emperor's Aresenal, Etc.

On Mon, 31 Mar 1997 10:35:43 -0600 (CST), you wrote:

> Personal Combat: I don't know what changes will be made to this, but
> given some of the changes in the task system, this will have to be
> changed at least slightly as well.  Also, we know Marc will have =
better,
> more complete, tables for combat.

Just no more body pistols that can hit targets 1.5 klicks away (no
matter *how* good of a shot the person is :)

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

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 08:07:18 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: T4 Deluxe, Emperor's Aresenal, Etc.

On Mon, 31 Mar 97 23:18:37 -0600, you wrote:

> On 03/31/97 at 08:38 PM,  "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com> =
said:
>=20
>=20
> > > Tasks:  We've all seen the new task system by now.  The progression=
 is
> > > 2D/2.5D/3D/4D/5D.  Tasks are expressed in a specific format.  And =
so on,
> > > as given in Marc's post from a few weeks ago.
>=20
> > Marc should look at KBv2.0 as the new task system and get rid of  =
that
> > half die.
>=20
> Marc,
>=20
> I agree with Ken about the task system.  Yes, I have my own version of =
the
> task system, but it doesn't look like you're interested in a slightly =
more
> complicated system that includes an aptitide with each skill, so....the
> simple alternative is Ken's KBv2.0.

I also agree.  Although I seem to have missed Marc's posting for the
new task system (and can't comment fully), I see little reason to
cling to those pesky half dice when so many list members have voiced
their opinions against them.  Ken's KBv2.0 works.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 01:54:43
From: Lee Neal <deathadder@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: KBv2.0

Could someone send me a copy of this KBv2.0?

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 14:25:21 +0200
From: Carlos Alos-Ferrer <alos@merlin.fae.ua.es>
Subject: Re: History of the Geonee, Part 1

>On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, I wrote:

>>   The Geonee are frequently considered arrogant by the average sophont in
>> Massilia sector. This impression frequently comes from the misunderstanding
>> of their culture. And this culture arises from a distinctive history. One
>> should not forget that the Geonee have inhabited all their worlds since more
>> than ten thousand years ago, being the only human race with an interstellar
>> culture when the Vilani explorers first adventured in the sector.

>Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au> replied:

>Incorrect (i think, depending on your definition) The solomani had a
>"community" when they meet the vilani, and i assume the zhodani were in a
>similiar situation.

        Sorry, but you need to re-check your timelines. By the time the
Geonee and the Vilani met, the Solomani have not ventured out of the Terra
system. The Vilani was the first human race to use J-drive, and the Geonee
race was the second. The Solomani developed J-1 in -2,431, and the
Vilani/Geonee meeting took place in -9,000. The difference is of six and a
half MILLENNIA (I do not recall the exact dates in Terran calendar, but,
roughly, the Geonee were already starfaring around four millennia before
Christ). As for the Zhodani, they discovered J-1 in -5,415, so it is a
difference of three and a hlaf millennia.

        The Solomani are just newcomers into interstellar travelling. The
Vilani and the Geonee are the only true "old ones"... as the word Geonee
indicates ;-)
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Alos-Ferrer                          E-mail: Alos@merlin.fae.ua.es
Dpt. Fundamentos del Analisis Economico     Phn: (34) 6 5903400, Ext. 3226
Universidad de Alicante                     Fax: (34) 6 5903685
03071-Alicante (Spain)                      "Thursuth gha kvaekh?"
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 08:33:55 -0500 (EST)
From: CMcknight@aol.com
Subject: Re: Hospitalers

In a message dated 97-04-01 01:19:42 EST, you write:

<< I think it would make more sense if it was based
 on the Hospitaliers, because the Templars were disbanded during the 1300
 and most of there wealth/propety was given to the Hospitaliers.
  >>

I didn't think the papal bulls disbanding the Templars were ever read in
Scotland.  Hmm, need to look back into that.

Chuck McKnight
cmcknight@aol.com

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

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 07:56:38 -0600 (CST)
From: lee@uansv2.Vanderbilt.Edu (Mike Lee)
Subject: Adventure Writing Contest

Hi, all-

        Several digests back it was said that the winners for the adventure
writing contest would be finalized around April 1.  Does anybody In The Know
have anything to share about this?
      
Thanks!

Mike Lee

"I hate waiting..." -Inigo Montoya, "The Princess Bride"

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 07:56:20 -0600
From: Paul Walker <tiger@goldinc.com>
Subject: AUCTION UPDATE #2

OK, here are the most recent bids, but first, a word on the shipping...  I
will be willing to compute the actual shipping charge, but it will be at the
expense of the time it takes to let the bidder know the actual cost.  See, I
can use my estimates and tell you how much it will cost as soon as I know
you are the high bidder, or I can tell you after I get to the post to have
the price figured.  Either way is fine by me, but this will keep the
shipping from being too high or inappropriate.

Also, a word about dates...   I will be sending in an update later this
week, then another at the beginning of next week, and MAYBE another on the
10th or 11th, then the bidding will go private between only those who have
bid on an item.  Keep this in mind when looking over the list.

OK, here's the list...  As before, if something is wrong, just let me know. :)

CLASSIC TRAVELLER

Book 6: Scouts     GDW 1983     Mid Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $7.00  -  Danny M. Moody

Adv 2:  Research Station Gamma     GDW 1980     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $7.00  -  Jason Anderson

Adv 3:  Twilight's Peak     GDW 1980     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid: $11.00  -  Jason Anderson

Fifty Starbases     Judges Guild 1981     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid: $10.00  -  Keith Salakar


MEGATRAVELLER

Boxed Set (with 9-1-90 errata)     GDW 1987     Min Bid: $15.00
    Includes:  Players' Manual; Referee's Manual; Imperial
                   Encyclopedia; and Spinward Marches Map
Bid: $17.00  -  Jeff Harvey

Rebellion Sourcebook     GDW 1988     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $5.00  -  Steven Hudson

Referee's Companion     GDW 1988     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $6.00  -  Jeff Brawley

Hard Times     GDW 1991     Min Bid: $8.00
Bid:  $9.00  -  Glenn M. Goffin

Starship Operator's Manual     DGP 1988     Min Bid: $12.00
Bid: $15.00  -  Jason Anderson

Vilani & Vargr     DGP 1990     Min Bid: $15.00
Bid: $20.00  -  Dedly

MegaTraveller Journal #4     DGP 1993     Min Bid: $5.00
     (Lords of Thunder, K'kree Issue)
Bid: $12.00  -  Marshall Bautista

Arrival Vengeance     GDW 1992     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $7.00  -  Brian A. Howard


TRAVELLER: THE NEW ERA

Survival Margin     GDW 1993     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $6.00  -  Solomani

Main Rulebook (Mark 1, Mod 1, Dec 93)     GDW 1993     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $5.00  -  Lewis Roberts

Brilliant Lances     GDW 1993     Min Bid: $10.00
Bid: $15.00  -  Eric Holmes

Fire, Fusion, & Steel (Mk 1, Mod 1, Jan 94)     GDW 1993     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid: $15.00  -  Phil Rhodes

Smash & Grab     GDW 1994     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  NO BID

Referee's Screen (W/ Lady Elise)     GDW 1994     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  NO BID

Battle Rider     GDW 1993     Min Bid: $10.00
Bid: $15.00  -  Eric Holmes

Path of Tears     GDW 1993(?)     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $5.00  -  Steven Hudson

Reformation Coalition Equipment Guide    GDW 1994     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $9.00  -  Jeff Harvey

World Tamer's Handbook     GDW 1994    Min Bid: $10.00
Bid: $15.00  -  Eric Holmes

Vampire Fleets     GDW 1995     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid: $10.00  -  Marshall Bautista
     $10.00  -  Dedly

Striker II      GDW 1994    Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $5.00  -  Steven Hudson
      $5.00  -  KevinC

Regency Sourcebook     GDW 1995     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $7.00  -  Jeff Harvey
      $7.00  -  Danny M. Moody

Star Vikings     GDW 1994     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $5.00  -  Steven Hudson

Hiver & Ithklur     GDW 1995     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $6.00  -  Solomani

Regency Combat Vehicle Guide     GDW 1995     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $8.00  -  Kevin Walsh

The Guilded Lilly     GDW 1995     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $5.00  -  Kenneth Bearden
      $5.00  -  Steven Hudson


MARK MILLER'S TRAVELLER

Hardbound Rulebook (Signed)     Imperium Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $10.00  -  Marshall Bautista

Starships     Imperium Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $7.00  -  Jeff Harvey

Central Supply Catalog     Imperuim Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $7.00  -  KevinC

Aliens Archive     Imperium Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid: $10.00  -  Marshall Bautista

Mileau 0     Imperium Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid: $10.00  -  Rob Gillingham

First Survey     Imperium Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid: $10.00  -  Rob Gillingham
     $10.00  -  Marshall Bautista

JTAS 25     Imperium Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $7.00  -  Danny M. Moody



RULES

1.  All prices are considered to include postage to the continental USA.

     MORE INFO ON POSTAGE:
          US POSTAGE:  Parcel Post will be used for all shipping of one item.
                       Priority Mail will be used for orders of more than 1
item.
                       For Priority Mail for single item orders, add $1.00.
                       For Express Mail (Second Day to Post Office) add $10.00.
          CANADA:  Canada postage is Standard Letter Rate (Add $1.00 per item)
          OTHER:  Postage is not included and will be approximately
                   $5.00 for the first item and $2.00 per item after the first.

For more than 5 items, postage will be figured more precisely.
Other postage options will be considered and possibly used at the bidders
decision.

2.  Nothing will be shipped until I get a check.  Sorry, but I've been a
sucker one to many times already in this life.

3.  Bids for all items will be posted twice weekly.

4.  After the final posting, any additional bids will be directly hashed out
by me between all remaining bidders.

5.  All bids MUST be in whole dollar increments, and payment must be in US
Dollars.

6.  SPECIAL BONUS!!! The Buyer with the highest total price will get free
50Cr of Imperial Currency imprinted with Strephon's empression. (In 10Cr slips).

7.  Only bid if you intend to buy.

    Paul {tiger}
     tiger@goldinc.com
     http://www.goldinc.com/~tiger

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1118
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Tuesday, April 1 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1119



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: closed systems
Re: Prize taking (Boarding Action)
Re: Prize taking (Boarding Action)
Away Boarders! (LONG, I'm afraid)
Re: Hospitalers
Re: T4 Deluxe
White Papers
Re: closed systems
Boarding Action, matching vectors
Re: Much Ado About Starship Design
Hiver Question
Re: KBv2.0
Re: KBv2.0
Chris Foss in Starburst
Re: Much Ado About Starship Design
Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...
TNE: RC Tac-Codes

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:44:11 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: closed systems

In a message dated 4/1/97 6:19:13 AM, you wrote:

<<what do they
> do with all their waste from grease to feces -- do they just _dump_ it in
> the deep???

Yes, it is called "flushing the bilges." The open the bilges to the outside
seawater (which is at a higher pressure) and flush it out. Apparantly you can
do some really nasty swirlies at this time, since if you flush a toilet when
it is going on it kind of works in reverse.


Do subs grow any food at all, or is it all prepackaged?>>

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:44:10 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Prize taking (Boarding Action)

In a message dated 4/1/97 2:37:52 AM, you wrote:

<<Theory 2: If a missile can hit a moving ship, then a skilled pilot could
with work could get close enough to a ship to grapple (Mag grapples,
adhesive, old fashioned, whatever).

The missiles in TNE never hit moving ships, the use Nuclear pumped X-ray
lasers to damage it. But that is really neither here nor there.
Vector-matching isn't that difficult, especially with computer assistance:
disabling the targets maneuver drives would make it a snap. Otherwise I would
say it would be a Formidable task resisted by an Easy one (on the part of the
defender, much easier to dodge away then it is to match someone elses
movement). Of course, once locked on (mag grapples or whatEVER), the combined
mass will really slow down any attempt to get away, depending on relative
masses. If the attacking ship is considerably bigger, you might not even have
to board any troops (ala Star Wars, suck it inside). Of course, any failure
(much less catastrophic) on that Formidable/Easy roll, can you say consult
the Ramming rules?

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 08:53:35 -0700 (MST)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Prize taking (Boarding Action)

 
> Theory 2: If a missile can hit a moving ship, then a skilled pilot could
> with work could get close enough to a ship to grapple (Mag grapples,
> adhesive, old fashioned, whatever).

There is a problem compared with a missile interception---you have
to match courses.  So you need to end up in the same place at the
same time, _and_ you have to share the target's vector.  Basically
this means intercepting the target with a very low closing velocity.

> Theory 2: If you cannot see it, you cannot hit it, ergo you cannot dodge it.
> Missiles are very fast moving no stealth applied spacecraft, that use some
> manner of exhaust based thrust. It is possible to create rather fast moving
> grav based space vehicles, this combined with stealth gear could create a
> small enough profile to be unnoticed in a larger ship to ship combat. 
> 
> Given these theories it may be possible to get from one to five highly
> trained troops onto the hull of an opposing starship. From there it is not a
> mean feet to cause havoc of nearly any nature, given the right training and
> equipment.

If you could do this, you end up allowing really nasty missiles
(since they could "dock" with a relative velocity of a few hundred
km/s if they chose to :-)
 
- -Merrick

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

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 10:00:14 -0600 (CST)
From: lee@uansv2.Vanderbilt.Edu (Mike Lee)
Subject: Away Boarders! (LONG, I'm afraid)

Hey-

        Someone on the list asked about ship boarding scenarios (forgive me,
but I forgot your name, and the digest got deleted), and I wanted to share
some observations from my CT campaign, which included privateers and
boarding actions.
        In my Spinward Marches campaign, it was Imperial Naval Policy to
allow Regional Commanders (i.e. Grand Admiral Santanocheev, and later Norris
during the 5FW) the option of issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal to
civilian ships during the course of open hostilities.  These letters had to
indicate specifically which types of shipping were valid targets (i.e.
Zhodani commercial transports, Zhodani troop transports, Sword World
merchant ships, etc.), and the Office of the Admiralty had to indemnify
themselves in the event that the privateers caused damage to Imperial
property.  The letters also specified a set duration, usually stating "until
the end of the present emergency, that is the State of War existing between
the Zhodani Consulate and the Third Imperium".  The intention of all this
was to keep the Letters of Marque from becoming a license to kill for
anybody with an armed starship.  During the Fifth Frontier War, Norris
actually persuaded Santanocheev to issue Letters of Marque during the early
stages of the war, largely by assuming the necessary  indemnification
himself, and quite a number of ex-Navy men became enthusiastic privateers.
Their efforts disrupted enemy supply lines and tied down valuable Zhodani
front line squadrons, and their largely unsung efforts were lauded by Norris
in a number of speeches at the conclusion of hostilities.  Once peace was
restored, the letters became invalid, and the surviving privateers (some
quite rich) went back to their civilian lives.
        The use of privateers was by no means limited to the Imperium during
the war.  The Sword Worlds have a long tradition of privateering during war
(and peacetime as well), and nobles are allowed to purchase Letters of
Marque from their governments at any time.  This arrangement stipulates that
all prize vessels must be sold directly to the government at a cut rate, and
the privateers are forbidden to hunt within the jurisdiction of the current
government and its allies.  During the war, enterprising young nobles from
Gram, Sacnoth, and Flamberge organized themselves into "joint ventures" and
gave birth to the infamous Privateer Squadrons of the period, some of whom
were still operating as of 1121.
        Privateer strategies were simple- attack soft targets, force their
surrender, board them and escape.  The bravest of the Imperial privateers
were fond of penetrating deep behind Zhodani lines and lurking around a busy
system's gas giant.  When a valid target arrived (like a lumbering Zho
merchantman), they would fire a number of warning shots and force the ship
to surrender.  This tactic worked best after the target had made orbital
insertion, which greatly limited its options as to maneuvering.  A prize
crew would board the ship, offload the crew (leaving them in disabled ship's
boats, pressurized cargo containers, or sometimes floating in vac suits),
complete refueling, and leave.  In the event that the target put up a fight,
the privateer was forced to exchange shots until the enemy lost the will to
fight, or was disabled.  Since the target was usually a merchant or supply
ship, this usually didn't take long.  Successful privateers were the ones
who knew how to pick their targets- large ships with minimal combat
potential were ideal.  Extended combat was to be avoided at all costs
because a.) you were shooting holes in your prize money, b.) they were
shooting holes in you, and you were a long way from a friendly port, and c.)
it was hard to form a prize crew if half your men were dead.  The rule of
thumb was that the privateer had to have at least twice the firepower of his
target, or else he was taking a huge risk.  The target either had to be
immediately convinced that battle was a foregone conclusion, or else the
attacker had to be able to do significant damage to the target ship
immediately.  Attacking enemy warships was foolhardy in the extreme, unless
a privateer was lucky enough to stumble across one already damaged in battle.
        Military boarding actions were common during the war, but rarely
intentional- that is to say, enemy ships who were unable to escape the
combat area due to damage found themselves boarded and captured, as opposed
to planned capture attempts.  Imperial Navy boarding drill worked in the
following manner:

1. Order the ship to surrender, hold their current course, and shut down
their power plant.  (The "hands up" call.  Imperial Captains are instructed
to attempt this first, as it removes the enemy ship's ability to fight and
maneuver.  It almost never happens, unless the enemy knows it hasn't a
chance of getting away.)

2. If the ship will not heave to, it must be disabled.  This means
eliminating weapons systems and maneuver potential.  As long as an enemy
ship can fire its weapons and make even small maneuvers, a boarding craft
cannot approach it and grapple effectively.  Boarding is handled by ship's
boats because no Captain in his right mind would run the risk of bringing
his ship into point-blank range of an enemy who could be playing possum.  Of
course, when firing on the enemy ship, there is always the very real
possibility of blowing it up- which, in my campaign, happened about a third
of the time.

3. Away boarders- Marine boarding teams are formed and led by a Naval
lieutenant (tradition), who use ship's boats to match velocity and attitude,
and grapple with the target.  This is an extremely difficult maneuver, and
all but impossible if the enemy ship is capable of maneuvering (see above).
Even a small miscalculation can result in a collision, with catastrophic
results.  Now comes the hard part.

4. Take the ship.  Boarders have only four options of getting inside the
ship:  the airlocks, supplementary accessways (e.g. cargo hatches, hangar
bays), holes made by battle damage, or breaching charges.  Airlocks are the
obvious entryways, and provide a choke point where the defenders can tie
down boarding parties at will, so they are generally avoided.  Supplementary
accessways are a better bet, as the defenders have to guess where the attack
will come from, and must disperse their forces to deal with every
possibility.  Holes already made by combat can be greatly advantageous
depending on their location, but if the adjoining sections of the ship are
pressurized, getting into the rest of the ship is problematic.  Breaching
charges are a last resort, because while it would allow you to enter the
ship at any location you desire, the act of blowing yet another hole in the
hull can cause damage to vital ship systems (all those power conduits, data
feeds, and life support lines have to run somehwere, after all).  This, by
the way, is one reason why a Naval officer leads the boarders- if they have
to make a breach, he presumably will know the best place to put the charge
to cause minimal damage.

        Once inside, Marine teams immediately drive for main engineering,
also establishing blocking positions to keep enemy crew in the forward
sections from sending reinforcements.  Once engineering is secure, the
bridge becomes the next objective.  From there the remaining spaces are
systematically cleared out, provided the defenders haven't already surrendered.
        Shipboard combat in my game centered on melee combat.  The rationale
(as has already been discussed in depth in earlier posts) is that a ship has
a lot of vital components that don't take too well to gunfire- control
consoles, screens, conduits, oxygen feed lines, etc.  As a result, most
shipboard fighting is done with blades or firearms using low-velocity
"safety slugs" (e.g. Glaser rounds).  The typical composition for a Marine
boarding squad of twelve men  would be four soldiers armed with six-foot
glaives (basically a long-bladed knife on the end of a wooden shaft), four
men with sabres (a combat duty sabre weighs 2.5 pounds, is 2.5 inches wide
at the hilt, and tapers to a sharp thrusting point), three sharpshooters
with semiautomatic carbines, and a sergeant armed with a sabre and a pistol.
Boarding armor is cerametal plate with a kevlar inner lining,  covering the
torso, shoulders, upper arms and thighs, and is worn over a lightweight vac
suit.  These squads work as coordinated teams, and used properly are very
formidable opponents.  The glaives are employed to clear out passageways,
while the sabre men do the close-quarters work in rooms.  The boarding armor
will stop nearly all low-velocity small arms fire, and in the event that the
defenders bring anything heavier to bear, the sharpshooters are called on to
take care of it.  In some cases the sergeant is entrusted with a number of
grenades for use in dire emergencies.
        In conclusion, boarding actions are often grim, bloody affairs, and
casualties on both sides are often high if the defender is determined to
make a fight of it.  One of my player groups decided to become privateers
during a 5FW campaign that I ran, and made a considerable fortune capturing
enemy merchant shipping.  They picked large, weak targets and generally
captured them without much struggle- the challenging part was getting the
prize back to an Imperial port!  Only once did they attempt to board a
heavily damaged Zhodani cruiser, which they caught trying to make repairs in
an isolated system.  It took three gaming sessions to resolve the boarding
action, and it was one hell of a fight.  When all was said and done, the
Zhodani crew fought to the last man, and the players had barely enough
manpower left to crew their own ship, much less claim their prize!  By the
time the war was over, they had developed boarding tactics to an art form.
        Sorry to take up so much bandwidth.  I hope this provides some grist
for the mill.

Mike Lee

"Unidentified vessel, unidentified vessel, this is the Imperial Cruiser
Arbellatra.  Come to course 290 and secure your maneuver drives.  Place your
power plant on standby and prepare to be boarded..."

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

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 08:18:27 -0800
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: Hospitalers

At 11:20 PM 4/1/97 +1000, Solomani wrote:
>If you (or anyone) needs more information about the Knighthood or anything
>related to them, your welcome to ask me since my hobby is military
>history, especially when it concerns Malta/The Knights.

Good.  Then perhaps you can enlighten us regarding that pesky "falcon" that
people have been looking for, but which no one seems to have in their
possession (though a copy, or perhaps the original, appears to have popped
up in California a few years ago, covered nicely by saying they were "just
making a movie" about it). 

Some of our best men are, no doubt, driving up to your place right now to
discuss this with you...



- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:32:47 -0800
From: Danny_M._Moody@mailhost.bridge.com (Danny M. Moody)
Subject: Re: T4 Deluxe

>As part getting rid of the typos, IG must have recommisioned new art for
>the small arms.

New art?  What was wrong with the art in _The Traveller Book_? Or the stuff DGP 
used on those equipment record sheets.  There are *tons* of good Traveller art 
already produced.  Why not use it?

- --Vanya

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

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 10:06:50 -0700
From: Eric Holmes <holmes_eric_t@lanl.gov>
Subject: White Papers

I went through my copies of TNL and found a reference to the
Imperial Marines/Army White Paper.  I was wondering if this
was available on the net?  Can anyone help?

Thanks

Eric

              ~~~~~
             (-0^0-)
- ---------oOOo--( )--oOOo---------
Educate  --  Lead  --  Serve

Eric T. Holmes, Safety Engineer
JCI Technical Assurance Department
Health and Safety Branch
PO Box 50    MS: G750
Los Alamos, NM 87544

Tel:  505-665-4894
Fax:  505-665-1887

Voice Pager:  104-1628

              ~~~~~
             (-0^0-)
- ---------oOOo--( )--oOOo---------

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 09:40:50 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: closed systems

On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Solomani wrote:

> 
> Dont know complete details but i know Nuclear subs are completely self
> sufficient in every aspect execept food and ammo.  They recycle air, and
> the power supply works like a car, goes on for ever until you run out of
> fuel, but there fuel is nuclear energy which lasts so long that the vessel
> will rust before they run out of energy.
> 
> All the food is prepackaged.

Bet the cooks on board the boomers (reputed to be among the best in the
Navy) are surprised to hear that.

Also, IIRC, the fuel loading in a nuclear ship only lasts something
like 3-4 years....this is one of the big problems that the Soviet fleet is
having; what to do with all the spent fuel cores. They had been just
dumping it at sea, until they got caught.

On another, more off topic note, last month, a bunch of Columbian drug
smugglers were busted trying to purchase a used Soviet submarine,
presumably for smuggling purposes.

Just how close to the American coast did they expect to get, in an
ex-Soviet submarine??? Hasn't Hunt for Red October been translated to
Spanish yet? I think it would be a race between the attack subs, surface
ships and Navy aircraft to see who got to blow it up first!

Finally, COMPLETELY off topic, but I gotta say it:-)

YEEEEEHHAAAAAAAA! 

ARIZONA WILDCATS NCAA 1997 BASKETBALL NATIONAL CHAMPEENS! 

and to the Dollars: Nyaaa Nyaaa!

Actually it is sad that ASU lost...it would have been a hell of a one two
punch for this year!

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 09:51:55 -0700
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Boarding Action, matching vectors

MrkGrismer@aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 4/1/97 2:37:52 AM, you wrote:
> 
> <<Theory 2: If a missile can hit a moving ship, then a skilled pilot could
> with work could get close enough to a ship to grapple (Mag grapples,
> adhesive, old fashioned, whatever).
> 

I disagree. See below.

> The missiles in TNE never hit moving ships, the use Nuclear pumped X-ray
> lasers to damage it. But that is really neither here nor there.
> Vector-matching isn't that difficult, especially with computer assistance:
> disabling the targets maneuver drives would make it a snap. Otherwise I would

In my universe there is a distinct difference between the ship's
maneuver drives (responsible for thrust in the forward direction)
and the ship's steering jets. The latter handle any close maneuvering
like docking. The number and size of the jets comes from the ship's
agility rating and reflect the ship's ability to "jiggle" around
to avoid incoming shots.

Thus, even with the maneuver drive totally disabled, you'd still have
a hard time grappling. Think of it as two airplanes attempting the
same thing. If one airplane's engines are off (so it's gliding), it
can still steer and avoid grappling attempts. Of course, this example
can only be carried so far -- who'd be stupid enough to grapple an
airplane?

In my universe, to effectively grapple, you'd have to knock out the
bridge or computer so that nobody's steering the ship.

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:26:59 -0500
From: "Chris Cox" <chriscox@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Much Ado About Starship Design

Marc Miller wrote:

> SPACE COMBAT RANGES
> Range   Name Value
>    6    Distant / Boarding  5 km
>    7    VDistant  50 km
>    8    Regional  500 km
>    9    Continental    5,000 km
>    10   Planetary 50,000 km
>    11   Far Orbit 500,000 km
>    12   Interplanetary 1 AU
>    13   Outsystem 10 AU
>    14   Oort 100 AU
>    Subtract 6 from range number to determine the number of range bands
between
> two ships.

Why don't you just use the number from Central supply catalog as the basis
for space combat ranges:

subregional(10km)   
regional(30km) 
subcontinent(300km) 
continent(3,000km)  
orbital(30,000km)   
far orbit(300,000km)     

Or is there some really good reason to justify redefining published matterial
and further muddling Traveller?

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:17:02 -0500 (EST)
From: GDWGAMES@aol.com
Subject: Hiver Question

Hugh Foster <100326.446@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Loren's AOL account & Misjump!

> Hey, Loren, does this mean you got the GDW AOL account as a 
> mustering-out benefit from the old mob? :)

I wish it were a benefit...it is costing me $20 a month.I'll eventually get
the screenname changed, but for the moment, it will stay GDW Games, despite
the confusion that creates...nostalgia mostly (besides, you'd be surprised
how many people _still_ haven't got the word).

Buson Asks:

> Hmm why? why not insect?

Marc and all of us felt that with a name like Hive, making them insects with
a bee-like social order would have been too predictable.

> Ive noticed that there are no insect liek lifeform nor tree like lifeform.
> Is there a reason for this?

Could it be because everyone thinks bugs are icky? And trees don't run very
fast? Nah...

I have an insect-like sophont in the preliminary stages of writeup, which I
will be submitting to the Journal in the near future. I am not designing any
trees, at least not at the moment.

Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com>
> Subject: Re: Hivers
>
>Quoth Solomani:
>> Ive noticed that there are no insect liek lifeform nor tree like lifeform.
>> Is there a reason for this?
>
>For insects, there's a fairly obvious reason: the square-cube law
< minor snip to save space >
> prohibits large (sentient-size) beings equipped with exoskeletons.

IMHO, the problem with large insects is not so much exoskeleton (although
that is a factor) as circulation. There is no reason why a non-Terran
lifeform with an exoskeleton could not have a better circulatory system than
terrestrial arthropods (did I spell that right?), so there is no reason _not_
to have intelligent insect-like critters.

Loren Wiseman
    GDW Emeritus

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:04:53 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: KBv2.0

> Could someone send me a copy of this KBv2.0?

KBv2.0 is the task system I designed to get rid of the problems with 
the T4 system.  One of these problems was those pesky little half 
die.

KBv2.0 is simple.  Here's the two steps to using it:

          Step 1)  Difficulty Codes.

          Change the difficulty codes you use to these--         Easy      2D/Auto
                                                                 
Average        3D
                                                                 
Difficult      4D
                                                                 
Formidable     5D
                                                                 
Staggering     6D
                                                                 
Impossible     7D


          Step 2)  Target Number Calculation.

          Change the way you calculate target numbers to this--

          Experience + Attribute

          (How do you come up with a character's experience?  3 x skill 
          level.  Record this number next to the character's skill for 
          easy reference during play.)



And that's it.  Make those two changes, and you are using KBv2.0.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:04:54 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: KBv2.0

> I suppose it's time to report how Ken Bearden's version 2.0 task system has
> been doing in my campaign. Overall, very well. It handles a variety of
> tasks at both large and small target numbers far better than the original
> task system in the book. You may be interested to hear some of the effects
> and rulings I have made using the system.

Thanks for reporting.  Good or bad, I was wondering how others were 
doing with KBv2.0.

> One thing I worried about that turned out not to be a problem was the
> effect of using more dice with the published DMs. I thought the effect of a
> 1 DM would be diluted when using 4 or 5 dice instead of 2 or 3, but this
> did not seem to happen. Perhaps because using more dice tends to favor
> average rolls over the extremes, a DM of 1 seemed to have just as much
> effect with many dice as with only a few. Or perhaps it's because players
> always try to get favorable DMs no matter how many dice they roll against.

I was concerned about this too when designing KBv2.0.  That, and the 
fact that 7 dice seems to be a bit much (but it sure makes the player 
think the task is VERY difficult, doesn't it?).  

Using the higher number of dice, the rolls do favor the middle of the 
distribution, but comparing the percentages to KBv1.1 and the T4 
system, KBv2.0 stands up nicely against anything else I've seen for 
Traveller.


> I don't recommend modifying the attribute or difficulty when using a skill
> level of 0. KBv2.0 handles skill-0 fine without special rules, just roll
> the normal number of dice against the relevant characteristic alone.

I agree.

> I strongly suggest using 2 dice for Easy tasks and not just assume the
> character automatically succeeds. Wounded or handicapped characters should
> have a chance to fail even Easy tasks. This is another example where the
> existing T4 task system breaks down; a character with a characteristic and
> skill of 2 will always succeed an Easy task with the T4 rules and
> practically never succeed an Average task. In KBv2.0 the same character may
> fail an Easy task but occasionally suceeds an Average task.

I agree again about rolling Easy tasks.  Depending on what the task 
is, I'll sometimes let my players automatically succeed, but in 
combat, they always roll for the Easy to hits.

> I suggest dividing each target number by the number of actions when
> characters attempt multiple actions. The existing rule, which say to divide
> only the characteristic, was workable when characteristics almost entirely
> determine success, but with KBv2.0 the skill contribution must be divided
> also. This gives better balance and is easier to calculate.

This was my opinion about that rule as well.  I've been using it 
since KBv1.1, and it works great.

> One problem I did run into is with spectacular results. The current rules
> make spectacular success too unlikely and spectacular failure far too
> common with a large number of dice. Also, there must be a higher chance to
> spectacularly fail the more dice you roll, otherwise an Impossible task is
> no harder than a  Difficult task for characters with high target numbers.
> The rule I have been using is that rolling 3 or more ones on a task roll is
> a spectacular success and rolling 3 or more sixes is a spectacular failure,

I never intended the SS and SF rules written in T4 to be used with 
KBv2.0.  

I'm working on a logical, simple rule for this, but I haven't had 
time to nail it down lately (thus, my lack of involvement on the TML 
of late.).

I'll post this as soon as I get it fininshed.


> IMHO, KBv2.0 is a vast improvement over the existing task system. Marc and
> IG should seriously consider it for Traveller Deluxe.

Thanks for the good words, Richard.

> Richard (not an employee of KBv2.0, just a satisfied customer) Hough
> rdhough@orca.bc.ca

In that  case, want a PR job?:)

Kenneth.

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 97 19:58 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Chris Foss in Starburst

There's an interview with CF in the Starburst 'Outer Space Special'. 
Traveller gets quite a few mentions (including the possible film). 
There's also a competition to win a copy of the rulebook. I think this 
is the first time in years that an RPG has been mentioned in an article.

    ---------=========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: Tue, 1 Apr 97 19:58 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Much Ado About Starship Design

In-Reply-To: <970331055017_-1504035536@emout02.mail.aol.com>

>  QSCS. Ships designed using QSDS resolve combat based on the Quick Ship
> Combat System (QSCS).

This implies that a ship designed with QSDS will be incompatible with any 
other combat system, and a ship designed with any other system will be 
incompatible with QSCS. This is a Bad Thing. All ships and combat systems 
should be interchangeable.

> 
> STARSHIPS AND SPACECRAFT 
>  A craft is any space vehicle. A ship is at least 100 tons. A small craft is
> any craft under 100 tons.
> A spacecraft is any craft capable of travelling between worlds.A starship is
> any ship fitted with a jump drive.
> All starships are spaceships; not all spacecraft are starships.

Does this mean no more ships < 100 tons?

    ---------=========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: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 13:34:37 -0600 (CST)
From: "Peter  H. Brenton" <pete@cummings.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...

On Mon, 31 Mar 1997 Neveron@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 97-03-31 11:21:07 EST, Peter Brenton writes:
> 
> >So a gauss weapon (specialized) that fires at this velocity keeps its ammo
> >in a liquid nitrogen cooled container?  Cool, even if somewhat less
> >practical.
> Any idea at what tech level room temperature superconducter becomes possible?
> dsf
> 
Well, I was actually thinking one would not need a "super" conductor, only
a really good one.  Also the choice of materials is dictated by how hard
that material is.  So if we found that the best room temperature
superconductor was, say, kiwi jello, we still would not want to use it as
a projectile, being as messy as it is ineffective.

Pete    

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 14:49:54 -0500 (EST)
From: fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin W. Cain)
Subject: TNE: RC Tac-Codes

Has anyone got a registry (list) for tac-codes for use in TNE?  
I mean, some people might have problems coming up with tac-codes for their
PCs and NPCs, and could use the ideas of others as "food for thought"...

Here are some of the tac-codes I've used:

"Warlock" -- Prof. Mikael Sergeievitch Rubinov, ex-professor/scientist,
             capt. of the Lab Ship /Isaac Asimov/
"Hawkeye" -- Sam (Samantha) Rogers, ex-trader, 
             XO & Nav. for /Isaac Asimov/
"Hunter"  -- Kathryn Windholme, ex-wet navy/spec ops/intel, 
             Warlock's cousin
"Wolfman" -- John Petrovski, ex-navy, ex-marine
"High Note" -- Lisa Richardson, singer/composer, ex-scout
"Dancer"  -- Kim (Kimberly) Maratashi, martial artist, keyboard artist
"Ogre"    -- Bill Ogriensky, Chf. Eng., /Isaac Asimov/
"Half-Pint" -- Carol Ogriensky, computer/electronics specialist, 
               Ogre's sister
"Angel"   -- Dr. Susan McDaniel, Chf. Medical Off., /Isaac Asimov/
"Hot Shot" -- Sandra McDaniel, gunner, /Isaac Asimov/, Angel's sister
"Sparky"  -- Tracy Evans, ex-scientist, 3rd Off., /Isaac Asimov/
"Cowboy"  -- Mark (Jonathon Mark, Jr.) Lucas, ex-air force, 
             Chf. Pilot, /Isaac Asimov/

"Rocky"   -- Maria McKenzie, ex-belter, archeologist,
             CEO, McKenzie Holdings, 
             Chf. Ops., McKenzie Station, Adrian (0432 Old Expanses)
"Flim-Flam" -- Joshua McKenzie, ex-trader, Rocky's brother

"Teacher" -- Prof. Kevin Harrison, ex-professor, ex-scout

"Wild Card" -- Jackie (Jacquelyn) Hoffman, ex-scientist, gambler

"Maestro" -- Jason Phillip Trent, ex-recording artist, diplomat

"Offline" -- Erica Holden, engineer, 
             brawler (but then, what engineer *isn't*...  :-)

"Whistler" -- Linda Kelly, ex-journalist

"Viper"   -- Malcolm O'Brien, ex-army/spec ops

"Warlord" -- Jeremi Taylor, ex-navy, ex-marines/spec ops

"Green Thumb" -- Susan Jackson, ex-farmer, scientist

"Gator"   -- Bob (Robert) Anderson, ex-army/spec ops

"Ping-Pong" -- David Giruu, ex-army/spec ops, ex-marine

"Hardball" -- (I've forgotten the NPC's name), ex-criminal/prisoner, 
              bounty hunter

I'd be interested in seeing what tac-codes others have come up with...

Franklin

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1119
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Tuesday, April 1 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1120



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Hospitalers
Re: Hospitalers
Re: Hospitalers
Re: Templars
Re: Black Curtain
Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
TNE: Free Starships...Guaranteed!!!
RE: RC Tac-Codes
submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)
Re: T4 Deluxe, Emperor's Aresenal, Etc.
Re: Hospitalers
Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
Re: closed systems
Re: Hospitalers
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1118
Re: TNE: RC Tac-Codes
Re: T4 Deluxe, Emperor's Aresenal, Etc.
Re: Hospitalers

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 21:11:02 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Hospitalers

<<Perhaps one of our UK contributors can correct me if I amm mistaken, but do
not the Hospitallers (sic?) still exist in Great Britain, under the name of
St John's Ambulance?

Loren Wiseman>>

Yes - the Order still exists - they operate one of the biggest 1st aid
training organisations in the UK - and seem to be based on, or near most
hospitals. They provide voluntary cover for many events....

That's where my company sent me for first aid training - I was surprised
when I noticed the 'order of St John' placard on the will, mentioning
hospitals in Jersualem etc.

- --------------- Dom Mooney (dom@cybergoths.u-net.com)---------------
"The fall of Empire, Gentlemen, is a massive thing, however, and not easily
fought. It is dictated by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a
freezing of caste, a damming of curiousity - a hundred other factors."
Seldon

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

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 12:50:07 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Hospitalers

At 08:33 AM 4/1/97 -0500, you wrote:
>In a message dated 97-04-01 01:19:42 EST, you write:
>
><< I think it would make more sense if it was based
> on the Hospitaliers, because the Templars were disbanded during the 1300
> and most of there wealth/propety was given to the Hospitaliers.
>  >>
>
>I didn't think the papal bulls disbanding the Templars were ever read in
>Scotland.  Hmm, need to look back into that.

It wasn't.  There was much speculation that the Stuarts were supported
during their exile by Templars seeking to insure that Scotland would be a
safe haven.


- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   clown outfits.       -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 12:50:05 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Hospitalers

At 11:20 PM 4/1/97 +1000, you wrote:

>As a side note, i have noticed someone creating an "order" for traveller
>based on the Templars.  I think it would make more sense if it was based
>on the Hospitaliers, because the Templars were disbanded during the 1300
>and most of there wealth/propety was given to the Hospitaliers.

that's what they *wanted* you to think.  there is considerable evidence that
the Templars existed, in one form or another, well beyond their
dismemberment at the hands of Philip II.

For a look at the sort of grand conspiracy we're considering, read "Holy
Blood, Holy Grail".. It talks a great deal about the Templars, the Prieure
du sion, and other shadowy groups.

Note:  If you are a devout Christian, some of the authors' theories may
offend you deeply.  Be warned.

>It makes even more sense if the order operates with (or has its roots in)
>the solomani rim.

In my view, the Templars began as a group investigating why there were so
Many human races.  When they stumbled onto some Ancient artifacts, they went
deep underground to keep the Rule of Man from interfering with their
studies.  By the end of the Long Night, they realized that the center of the
mystery lay to Spinward, so the manipulated the Sylean federation into a
dynamic Empire, with a strong desire expand to Spinward.  BTW:  My vote for
Templar in Cleon's court is Artemsus Lentuli, who became Emperor himself in
54 and reigned for 92 years!

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   clown outfits.       -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 12:50:12 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Templars

At 01:48 AM 3/28/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear Charlie:=20
>
>You must read this. I have uncovered some startling information. The
>files have been erased, but I have been able to piece this much
>together. DO NOT ASK ME HOW I GOT THIS. My life is in danger! Only you
>will know what to do with this information. Remember how we used to
>laugh about all the conspiracy theories? Well, just read this. I will
>contact you in a few days
>
>Your Friend
>
>Chief Harshman
>113-1109
>__________________________________________________________________
>Download File=85=20
>Error=85
>Attempting reconstruction=85
>FILE 4% COMPLETE:
>
>=85Templars have been working since the dawn of=20
>=85considered a myth,
>=85conspiracy extending back over 5000 years=85=20
>=85a rumor based on overactive imaginations.=20
>=85dark designs on the Iridium Throne...=20

The Templars would work behind the scenes.. not necessarily through the
Imperial Court, but be shaping the smaller events.

<snip>

>=85survivors were brought before religious courts of inquiry=20
>=85deity named 'Baphomet' and a relic called 'Caput LVIII M"=20
>=85rendering of a male human head.=20

I seem to remember the description as being a "female form, of fine grace"

>=85never accounted for
>=85an Ancient artifact=85
>=85based on psionic teachings.=20
>=85alien Templars as=85

Maybe not Templars, perhaps a teaching computer for the human workers.. What
did it teach the Templars?=20

>=85a Rule of Man organization, acting=85
>=85investigating the reasons =20
>=85the first Solomani megacorp=85
>=85in the hands of the nobility
>=85fund the "police actions"..=20
>=85information and influence.=20
>=85fiercely independent, exceedingly Solomani culture=20
>=85result of 2000 years=20
>=85went underground=85

There well could be a "Solomani" branch of Templarism.. holding perhaps that
all the answers can be found around Earth; while the "mainline" Templars
continue to research everything.

>=85the Darrians=20
>=85tragic 'accident'
>=85Emperor destroyed them.=20
>=85with their relic=85=20

What was the relationship between the Darrians and the Ancients?

>=85Solomani colonize next worlds=20
>=85slower than light travel from Earth
>=85despite the difficulties of crossing the Great Rift=20
>=85a mad dash for the contested=20
>=85determined to expand to Spinward

The odd political/military situation in the spin/rim quarter has been
discussed elsewhere.

>=85who believe the secret
>=85cause of the Psionic Suppressions...=20
>=85communicate across interstellar distances without resorting=85=20
>=85possible that the Long Night=85

I now see the PS as a house cleaning.  Too much acceptance of psionics,
mixed with the openess of Imperial culture, created an intolerable and
dangerous situation for the Order.


- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   clown outfits.       -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 16:29:10 -0500
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: Black Curtain

Jeff Brawley <brawleyj@UWSTOUT.EDU> wrote:
>>>
With all this talk of conspiracies, it got me thinking of what the Black
Curtain was.  It is on the map of The New Era, but it is of course never
explained.  In several of the TNE books regular Virus travel from
rimward to coreward is mentioned.  

If anybody knows what it is could please share it with me.  I was going
to use it in a campaign that I plan to run, and getting some idea of
what it is would be helpful.  
<<<

Ditto! Inquiring minds want to know. Please send me the information if
this has been discussed to death on the TML. Email: bsanders@amghome.com

Bob

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 16:50:35 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors

In a message dated 4/1/97 9:19:08 PM,efritz@glja.com (Erwin Fritz) wrote:

<<In my universe ...

[Always have to remember that]

there is a distinct difference between the ship's
maneuver drives (responsible for thrust in the forward direction)
and the ship's steering jets. The latter handle any close maneuvering
like docking. The number and size of the jets comes from the ship's
agility rating and reflect the ship's ability to "jiggle" around
to avoid incoming shots.

...

In my universe, to effectively grapple, you'd have to knock out the
bridge or computer so that nobody's steering the ship.>>

So then, wouldn't a ship with greater agility be able to cancel the agility
of a less agile ship?

[I know, i know, a lot of agility in that sentence.]

The computer should be able to be set to read any and all velocity changes in
the target, and then compensate using the attitude jets of the more agile
ship. Pilot input for the bording ship could then be isolated and apply only
to relativistic course changes. In other words, the computer could
effectively hault the target ship as long as the Agility of the attacker was
higher.

The attacking ship would, of course, have to be able to generate enough
forward thrust as well.

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 16:50:52 -0500 (EST)
From: fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin W. Cain)
Subject: TNE: Free Starships...Guaranteed!!!

I've noticed a loophole with the Starship Tables (as a mustering out
benefit) in TNE.  If a character or group of characters can get *any*
result of "-xx DM" on the Starship Table, they've got a *free* scout ship,
*absolutely*.

Because all ships must have a wear value, one of these DMs is taken for a
wear value of 1.  *All* *other* DMs are applied to the Starship *Type*
Table, resulting in a roll of "-2 (and below)" which gives a scout/courier
(or a modified scout).

End result: The player(s) have a *brand-new* scout/courier with *no*
payments remaining!

Has anyone else noticed this?...


Franklin

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 14:12:48 -0800
From: Mark Ayers <mark@bbic.com>
Subject: RE: RC Tac-Codes

TAC-Codes eh?
We have a team with the unimaginative
1. "Sawbones" for the guy who after being forced into the Balduri Navy by a 
judge went on to schooling and more schooling and more schooling followed 
by a medical internship and residency with the RCN. After being turned down 
for special naval operations he become unrespectable again these many years 
later
2. "Cowboy" the ranch hand and rodeo boy from the wilds.
3. "Numbers" the ex-vice-president  of a shipping firm on Lucifer and the 
money man behind the grim lot.
4. "Astro" the man that escaped from Spencer before the Oriflammee decided 
to involve themselves there only to find himself spaced in an asteroid belt 
on the edge of the RC. Lucky boy that one to be found before his vacc suit 
went dry.
5. "Flatfoot" the Oriflammee cop who went rebel after working special 
duties on Spencer. A wonderful actor too if he'd ever stick around long 
enough to get through rehearsals.
6. And the referee's top the head when radio contact or a face to face 
happens that wasn't planned for - Ping-Pong, Jester, Pancake, Mop-boy, 
Zip-bang...

begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT
M>)\^(C46`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$(@ <`
M& ```$E032Y-:6-R;W-O9G0@36%I;"Y.;W1E`#$(`0V ! `"`````@`"``$$
MD 8`E $```$````0`````P``, (````+``\.``````(!_P\!````0P``````
M``"!*Q^DOJ,0&9UN`-T!#U0"`````'1R879E;&QE<D!-4$=.+D-/30!33510
M`'1R879E;&QE<D!-4$=.+D-/30``'@`", $````%````4TU44 `````>``,P
M`0```!,```!T<F%V96QL97) 35!'3BY#3TT```,`%0P!`````P#^#P8````>
M``$P`0```!4````G=')A=F5L;&5R0$U01TXN0T]-)P`````"`0LP`0```!@`
M``!33510.E12059%3$Q%4D!-4$=.+D-/30`#```Y``````L`0#H!````'@#V
M7P$````3````=')A=F5L;&5R0$U01TXN0T]-```"`?=?`0```$,`````````
M@2L?I+ZC$!F=;@#=`0]4`@````!T<F%V96QL97) 35!'3BY#3TT`4TU44 !T
M<F%V96QL97) 35!'3BY#3TT```,`_5\!`````P#_7P`````"`?8/`0````0`
M```````"L4T!!( !`!$```!213H@4D,@5&%C+4-O9&5S`-D$`06 `P`.````
MS0<$``$`#@`,`# ``@`E`0$@@ ,`#@```,T'! `!``X``0`Y``(`(P$!"8 !
M`"$````V1#4W0S8Y,CDW04%$,#$Q0C9&03 P03 R-#=&14%!00!-!P$#D 8`
MY P``" ````+``(``0````L`(P```````P`F```````+`"D```````,`+@``
M`````P`V``````! `#D`H/)^U>D^O $>`' ``0```!$```!213H@4D,@5&%C
M+4-O9&5S``````(!<0`!````%@````&\/NG5(9+&5VZJEQ'0MOH`H"1_ZJH`
M`!X`'@P!````!0```%--5% `````'@`?# $````.````;6%R:T!B8FEC+F-O
M;0````,`!A @Q]*^`P`'$&\#```>``@0`0```&4```!404,M0T]$15-%2#]7
M14A!5D5!5$5!35=)5$A42$553DE-04=)3D%4259%,2)305="3TY%4R)&3U)4
M2$5'55E72$]!1E1%4D)%24Y'1D]20T5$24Y43U1(14)!3$154DE.0599````
M``(!"1 !````VPD``-<)``!4& ``3%I&=>0<5><#``H`<F-P9S$R-7(R#&!C
M,0,P`0<+8&Z1#A P,S,/%F9E#Y)/`?<"I -C`@!C: K <X1E= +1<')Q,@``
MDBH*H6YO$E @, '0A0'0-@^@,#4P-!0A\P'0%! T?0=M`H,`4 /4^Q'_$PMB
M$^$44!.R&/04T/L'$Q7D-1&/%U\91!1!%!"7%! /D ^0. ^@?4<*P))A!&!N
M9!7D,#<:?B@R,S@;A" =YB!#/D4>92 !'PT40" ?>7)G%>0/D!I^,386,2 \
M1WT)T6LD%18Q)+X.4" M5$\(<"05*+$DO3@V(NY"O0= = W@`H "D0CF.PEO
MZC MWV4.,#4O"C A+]__,.DN]#$2+W\S3S,-,H\PO_,O#Q!@,C@XVCGQ.:\Z
MN?\N]#KB.4\]'SS=/%\ZCSY4?CD.4$&D0P$[(T,``H)SJ'1Y; >0: G@=$11
M=F(3\$1@8451$U #\&0H8W1L"K%<1?AA9,QJ=41P!1!G: 5"&E(="_)C"<!&
M``,P<VYEOG@;8 >P!; `P )S<P!0K44P,A10171K">!P"Y!?1=]&0PA@1C +
M@&5$H';_31 !0$<[## 6(SKQ2O $H$T+@&<Z\4B68F$;0&0_`B!)4$CV1-!'
M,$]!(#'_1#,.4$I/2U],;P!13:P`H/].A$AX4"]1-D0D#\!%, X@?U)_4X],
MJPY01S]7'U"^,_L"@A,08TH07O%<\%%@+-!)34 @1 $0874LP" &4!WQ"<!A
M<&@@1J<"(4G4&F%I+1V"7$S@UV.#13]&36(+('()4&9"LQ:@9D)W-#A!&S!P
M`=#_8,)'7U;O7N<:4&'@!1 ",%8M8H #83HIL&]KL%,H=6)J!9!T:[!$8?AT
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M22$M`Q,0?WS 1' !D42@``"A,J$D90YM"U%LP)P`-C<V.?PX-P^@H2,`D**1
MH;5]`[N$H'T2;AKPA)%]$FJE=O4"$&P)`'>EA41P"L !D/<E@*;U"K!C"F"D
M] N `0"?`C !X7T#;,!),%PG$Z"YJA$P+@*"I023X&)VL=>J$5&Q`@!B!S!S
M7O&4^V^E\*$U#,&5(2"JLIJ!;O\>$!. J^&A,IP`&E :4'1 ]PXP0O"@V&]V
MH4BQ&U"AB.^P]J]/L*L%H'6I,82@2A"_+1"<@IO@G""'40& ;FPP_P!@"?!@
M\)/ `@%)D'+RLI!+MI%$@' Q@%QV")!W_FNH\2+0N ($\ = $&$!0-\.`(<B
M43*Y90(0;P5"&U$/$O*B=@,PN_%315)6`[Q N_!-05)+05DUO')/!3!I`B 6
MH%Q%ZP# `Q N7L!TJ_ ;0)P@VTC1?,)X`4"V86Y$T"WP=[Z$882M<" 2\P" 
M!9!L_G9545J #G!)D,$2IV+!HO^H] '!P1$;$ ]P``!:@ S0^0&0("Z@U,$F
M#E#!PBS _YQPPC_#3\1?#\!:@ 6!Q?_;QP_('VPBT%J ;,6_RG]]RX4IQ(P:
M8,E?SC_+=&+\("@"D<]?P5,KD,T/T<__TM_3[\& 'M#5,L(/UI_7K__$C" `
MU3_:O]O/W-_!@(X0_]F_WT_@7^%D"OF>XIM?G&^#G7](A7M404,M"%"C`0`$
M(&5H/PJ%5Q. 7QL084'+T&S 'A @`_!T_V)P[2 3@+2@!W!B( N ;+"_83$*
MA<MCJ>(+"D@=: W@YF@`8!I"9&+Q,X21D\#W\4 :05&@+@R"YA6L?></_^@=
MK6W Y KAWC#!@ ;@H%#_#$#!<;33P1$$H+J@SK+0__^I$I4BRP^O,4H1Z0JA
MP?&PN&QQ=;J@$X &$'<&X&])$!:@"R#]YB"VT>U#9^)UH&!W:&_L@+7P!)#^
M(*M@47*VT:A@(/!K(0" >^U2+*%D"'$'L.Q0H&!BIZ!@R]#I(&1G$X!WE +_
M$.#LH " N. `< ;P47(-L/\@\"Q0+? $CP6;IH0!H0,S/Z[P46"X\0'"3Q%$
MP&EP;P93+? -T*D18P!![192H$-.+B!!`+ET*=#_21 @\+5Q]]#_HHB M' 9
MT>H@KM!V",%OM\ >`+US_U$A`/&T@*[QM* )X0TQH7-][(!GYK+M41QA%;&@
M8'GK44 ;,""[HG+N;^]_\(_[\9]JT3+R[_/_]0_V'_<O__@_^4_Z7_MO_'_]
MC.L0_H'_'!#^^>U28D *0&)PRR$FH/\)H^LA`( B(?^0)['M0PJ ^?W <RX1
M_Q,/%!\5+_*A_C,6?Q>/&)\9KQJ_&\\<W^\=[Q[_( _]C$ZK12)M22#F+;@`
MJ& M< GEE" $(-9F[($)4G !(VE)D 0B^DS!X&FZX.OP!F+M4@5P_TD0H& 0
M\0#Q*( Z92@A[.!]IK!T)<\FWR?O*/_RDC3_*E\K;RQ_+8\NGR^O,+\QS]<R
MWS/O_8Q!Z4%O(EX[,G_M(&RPZV"XX;? @R DXU._M\ *0 #3MM&O`.U23U7@
M^F;FH&VN\*\`M&&Q03IQ^P" /C!V!@!A0>U1MP!],/]](.M0[5$%D?Z@@I $
M4H0P_R/1/V!2HCB J#,!L@91[(#[FI )(&\_(:M@8<$$,C<2WP.B.'$*U M 
M.=%K`Q$DL?].0_ZA!%*K8/^1M*!6$E #IS]@ZU -P&-C!;!U81#[`]2'0'D\
MKSV_/L\_W_*2_C5!/T)/0U]$;T5_1H]'G^](KTF_2L_]C$:[H;J"(E[_4)FT
M@ F `&(#XPG@5C$`E?YW_["X00% #28"D++@ZT'_!#%/90M!;W&I`;IPP(#L
M@/]BX/^R!? !P#B O[#^X/\T_X,@=I(%L++@6!#L@(T06:+_IK &,0HP?)"0
ML 12`["4(/_M('3!=;$)X+G1B' "<"6_[UR_7<]>W_*#-F!/85]B;_]C?V2/
M99]FKV>_:,]IW_V!_D$Z90G@.A%1$'-F4P%N`?_M4KG2`%$*,"-!") `@+2 
M_^6@<G$$(#HQ_Y"H45/#BL+?[$ X\ HP4P).87>2H'D0]W-UE"!XT6X,4O^B
MOV*2H$DCD"!0!B$M4'4Q+%P@2NM `,&/$% C86'4:V6/$$T.`"TB(8\0;EH)
M<)!PSP&%=X6%D `#D?&2, `#`! 0``````,`$1 #`````P" $/____] ``<P
M0&#M4.@^O % ``@P0&#M4.@^O $+``" "" &``````# ````````1@`````#
MA0````````,``H (( 8``````, ```````!&`````!"%`````````P`%@ @@
M!@``````P ```````$8`````4H4``+<-```#``F "" &``````# ````````
M1@`````!A0```````!X`%H (( 8``````, ```````!&`````%2%```!````
M! ```#@N, `+`!J "" &``````# ````````1@`````.A0````````,`&X (
M( 8``````, ```````!&`````!&%`````````P`=@ @@!@``````P ``````
M`$8`````&(4````````>`"R "" &``````# ````````1@`````VA0```0``
M``$`````````'@`M@ @@!@``````P ```````$8`````-X4```$````!````
M`````!X`+H (( 8``````, ```````!&`````#B%```!`````0`````````>
5`#T``0````4```!213H@`````)&;
`
end

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

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 14:36:31 -0800
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)

At 09:40 AM 4/1/97 -0700, Bruce Johnson wrote:
>On another, more off topic note, last month, a bunch of Columbian drug
>smugglers were busted trying to purchase a used Soviet submarine,
>presumably for smuggling purposes.

Okay, to steer this back on topic somewhat, why don't we have small
submarine fighters, perhaps deployable from a attack sub or a boomer?
These could be small manned subs or even drones; presumably even a small
number of these would make normal tactics difficult for the opposing sub.

And given that for some reason we _don't_ have these, what (if anything)
does that say about the viability of small space fighters?  Thoughts?

- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

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

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 15:05:37 -0800
From: Mark Bradley <MBradley@gwgate.swrcb.ca.gov>
Subject: Re: T4 Deluxe, Emperor's Aresenal, Etc.

On Tue, 01 Apr 1997 07:12:17, Harald Budschedl wrote:
<<BTW, It should be possible to get the Deluxe Version cheaper, if one
has already spent money for the original T4 rulebook.>>

Hear!  Hear!

It was a tough sell to my gaming group to switch our CT Campaign over
to T4, and not knowing any better, I just passed on the propaganda
surrounding the new system.  Everything went fine, until we tried to use
the QSDS, and then the ship combat system.  Now I just try to keep up
with fixes as they appear on the TML to pacify the group and keep them
from scrapping the whole thing and go back to the little black books.

Since all those who bought the T4 book(s) have served (largely via the
TML) as the test group for a gaming system sold to us complete and
intact, it seems appropriate that such a discount be offered when
purchasing the "Deluxe Version".

OK....I'm done whining.

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 20:50:53 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Hospitalers

On Tue, 1 Apr 1997 CMcknight@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 97-04-01 01:19:42 EST, you write:
> 
> << I think it would make more sense if it was based
>  on the Hospitaliers, because the Templars were disbanded during the 1300
>  and most of there wealth/propety was given to the Hospitaliers.
>   >>
> 
> I didn't think the papal bulls disbanding the Templars were ever read in
> Scotland.  Hmm, need to look back into that.
> 


As far as i know the Templers cease to exists during the 1300 (sorry cant
give you a date).  The Hosiptaliers still exist to this day.  The current
Grandmaster is a scotsmen.

c'ya hate to be ya,

michl

electric RAIN                      http://www.electric-rain.net/


Onitsura
And so the spring buds burst, and so I gaze,
And so the blossoms fall, and so my days...

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

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 16:40:23 -0700
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors

MrkGrismer@aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 4/1/97 9:19:08 PM,efritz@glja.com (Erwin Fritz) wrote:
> 
> In my universe, to effectively grapple, you'd have to knock out the
> bridge or computer so that nobody's steering the ship.>>
> 
> So then, wouldn't a ship with greater agility be able to cancel the agility
> of a less agile ship?
> 

Well, no. The ship with the greater agility can out-maneuver the
other ship. To match vectors, however, requires that the "victim"
ship not be "jiggling" at all relative to the "captor" ship. 

If my car chases your car and my car can out-maneuver yours, I
still won't be able to pull up alongside and pass you something 
through the window if you're trying to evade me. I'll either not
be able to get close or I'll hit you.

> The computer should be able to be set to read any and all velocity changes in
> the target, and then compensate using the attitude jets of the more agile
> ship. Pilot input for the bording ship could then be isolated and apply only
> to relativistic course changes. In other words, the computer could
> effectively hault the target ship as long as the Agility of the attacker was
> higher.
> 

I disagree. The computer of the pirate ship can't match random moves.
It can't anticipate the moves of the other ship.

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 15:43:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: closed systems

> Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 09:40:50 -0700 (MST)
> From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
> 
> On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Solomani wrote:
[wrt food aboard subs]
> > All the food is prepackaged.
> 
> Bet the cooks on board the boomers (reputed to be among the best in the
> Navy) are surprised to hear that.

I think we have a difference in wording here.  All the food is
"prepackaged" in the sense that none is grown/raised during the trip;
i.e., there is no livestock nor food plants on board.  BTW, during the Age
of Sail, both were routinely carried on long journeys.

And yes, an uncle of mine served on a boomer, and says the food and
general living conditions were astonishingly good.  The US Navy wants to
keep the people on board ships carrying a few hundred Hiroshimas *happy*.

> On another, more off topic note, last month, a bunch of Columbian drug
> smugglers were busted trying to purchase a used Soviet submarine,
> presumably for smuggling purposes.
> 
> Just how close to the American coast did they expect to get, in an
> ex-Soviet submarine??? Hasn't Hunt for Red October been translated to
> Spanish yet? I think it would be a race between the attack subs, surface
> ships and Navy aircraft to see who got to blow it up first!

Not necessarily.  There's not a huge amount of active ASW patrolling going
on during peacetime -- it's an expensive, labor- and equipment-intensive
process.  There is some, of course, but the net is more porous than you
might think.  Also, a lot of ASW tactics in the USN scheme depend on your
own vessels and threat vessels being (almost) the only things in the
water; during The Big One, the model was that merchant shipping would be
in USN-organized convoys, or idle in port.

With a zillion vessels of all sizes chugging around in offshore waters
(themselves a tricky sonar environment), it can get *very* hard to find
that Alpha crawling north just under the thermocline.  If the sub captain
knows a few tricks, it can get even harder.  For example, find a noisy
freighter headed more or less your direction, and cruise underneath it,
matching your blade rate to his. 

A full-tilt ASW operation, starting with approximate knowledge of the
sub's position, could still locate the sub within a few hours at most, of
course.  But we have neither the funding nor the staffing nor the
equipment to run ASW over our entire coastline 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year.  I'd guess we'd be lucky to hit 1% coverage, with the all USN ASW
assets devoted solely to coastal defense.  It's a big, noisy ocean, folks,
with many thousands of miles of US coastline. 

Remember, in _Red October_, they picked up Ramius at a chokepoint, and
tracked him continuously from there.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:02:48 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Hospitalers

On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Mike Sellers wrote:

> At 11:20 PM 4/1/97 +1000, Solomani wrote:
> >If you (or anyone) needs more information about the Knighthood or anything
> >related to them, your welcome to ask me since my hobby is military
> >history, especially when it concerns Malta/The Knights.
> 
> Good.  Then perhaps you can enlighten us regarding that pesky "falcon" that
> people have been looking for, but which no one seems to have in their
> possession (though a copy, or perhaps the original, appears to have popped
> up in California a few years ago, covered nicely by saying they were "just
> making a movie" about it). 
> 
> Some of our best men are, no doubt, driving up to your place right now to
> discuss this with you...
> 

Heres the story,

The Island of Malta was given to the Hospitaliers in 1401 (or so) by the
Holy Roman Emperor, who was the King of Spain.  He only had two
conditions, a) the knights wouldnt raise in arms against his domain (which
was redundent because one of the knights vows was not to attack Christian
nations) and b) They were to give two Falcons a year as tribute to the
King.

The first Year of Tribute (1402) the Hospitaliers sent two Jewel Encrusted
solid gold Falcons.  Thats where the truth is at the heart of the Legend.

Rumour and conjecture now follow:)

One Falcon was lost, the other falcon some how made its way back into the
hands of the Hospitaliers centuries later.  The second falcon was stolen
by Napaleon when he sacked Malta in 1805 on his way to Egypt (the maltese
promptly ejected the French Garrison and joined the British Empire). 

This second Falcon resides in France (cant remember the name of the
museum) with the other sacked items.  The first falcon is lost, or is in
calfornia, one of the two :)


Onitsura
And so the spring buds burst, and so I gaze,
And so the blossoms fall, and so my days...

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

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 17:59:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Jeff Brawley <brawleyj@UWSTOUT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1118

I would like to bid on this.  $17.00

Thankyou,

Jeff Brawley

>World Tamer's Handbook     GDW 1994    Min Bid: $10.00
>Bid: $15.00  -  Eric Holmes

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 19:13:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Re: TNE: RC Tac-Codes

Stealing heavily from my beloved Honor Harrington and sundry others in from
the world of Sci-Fi Fiction:
Sparky-the communications officer
Stars-the sensor officer
Guns-tactical officer
Chips-computer officer
Chief-the chief engineer ( and yes they ALWAYS seem to have brawling skill)

These would be for single ship use, and given out only to established and
trusted crew members. Others could be added, widgets for the small systems
tech, Rummy, for the morale officer and so on.
dsf

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 18:21:11 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: T4 Deluxe, Emperor's Aresenal, Etc.

On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Mark Bradley wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Apr 1997 07:12:17, Harald Budschedl wrote:
> <<BTW, It should be possible to get the Deluxe Version cheaper, if one
> has already spent money for the original T4 rulebook.>>
> 
> Hear!  Hear!

Your wish has been granted. [G]

IG has offered a discount on T4 Deluxe to those who purchased the 
original volume from the start.  See the web site for details (I believe 
it's under "news"), but basically you let them know you have a copy of T4 
(and when you purchased it, etc.), and place your order in advance (they 
don't charge you until they ship, though).  Then you get the discount. 
$10.00 I believe.

Get in touch with IG.


- -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: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:36:19 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Hospitalers

On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Douglas E. Berry wrote:

> At 11:20 PM 4/1/97 +1000, you wrote:
> 
> >As a side note, i have noticed someone creating an "order" for traveller
> >based on the Templars.  I think it would make more sense if it was based
> >on the Hospitaliers, because the Templars were disbanded during the 1300
> >and most of there wealth/propety was given to the Hospitaliers.
> 
> that's what they *wanted* you to think.  there is considerable evidence that
> the Templars existed, in one form or another, well beyond their
> dismemberment at the hands of Philip II.

Hmmm, this may be the case, but for all intents and purposes they do not
exist, and they were dismembered.  The reason they were disbanded was
because they had past there time, and, as an orginisation they were no
longer useful.

My only point is, if your going to create an equivalent furturistic
military order, based on an Earth Religious/Military order it would make
more sense to base them on (or make them an extenstion of) the
Hospitaliers as opposed to the Templars, since teh Hospitaliers were NOT
disbanded, exist today, and have left a lasting testament to there beliefs
- - the hospital.

Then again, I havnt read much of the Templar thread, so cant say this is
what the creator wants. 

> >It makes even more sense if the order operates with (or has its roots in)
> >the solomani rim.
> 
> In my view, the Templars began as a group investigating why there were so
> Many human races.  When they stumbled onto some Ancient artifacts, they went
> deep underground to keep the Rule of Man from interfering with their
> studies.  By the end of the Long Night, they realized that the center of the
> mystery lay to Spinward, so the manipulated the Sylean federation into a
> dynamic Empire, with a strong desire expand to Spinward.  BTW:  My vote for
> Templar in Cleon's court is Artemsus Lentuli, who became Emperor himself in
> 54 and reigned for 92 years!
> 

So why are they called 'Templars'?  They dont seem to reflect there
namesakes if there just scientists (or researchers).

SaHua,

michl

electric RAIN                      http://www.electric-rain.net/


If you're clever and sane enougth to put up an invincinble case for
suicide it demonstrates you ought not die.

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1120
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Tuesday, April 1 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1121



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Emperor's Arsenal, Game Screen
Re: T4 Deluxe, Emperor's Aresenal, Etc.
Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: KBv2.0
Deluxe T4 art
Re: Hospitalers
Re: Templars
Re: Hivers
Re: Hospitalers
Re: TNE: RC Tac-Codes
Re: Hospitalers
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: Hospitalers
Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)
Re: Templars
Ancients?
Re: Hospitalers

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 18:18:20 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Emperor's Arsenal, Game Screen

Hi,

I received both the Emperor's Arsenal and the Game Screen today.  They 
are the first products handled entirely under the new management.  

Most of the interior art is by Bryan Gibson.  It looks quite good, IMO.  
I hope they use him a lot more.

As for the text, it's Greg Porter.  'Nuff said.

Quick summary of what's included:  TL 0 through 16 weapons (the bulk of 
the book); Imperial Procurement Practices; New Weapon Rules 
(Malfunctions, Environmental Hazards, Special Weapon Effects); Weapon 
Technologies essay; Tactical Roles of Weapons essay; Chemical Weapons 
essay; No Nukes essay; Ammunition Costs essay; Law Levels essay.  

Every chapter has a summary table of the contents for the TL in 
question.  At the end of the book is a master set of tables, showing all 
weapons, organized by TL.

Looks good.  Very good.  I expect to use this a lot. :)


The Game Screen includes the "Memory Alpha" adventure which some of us 
may be familiar with. It's been altered to occur in M0. The screen itself 
is very nicely done.


- -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: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 00:33:12 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Thomas Biskup <tb@saranxis.ruhr.de>
Subject: Re: T4 Deluxe, Emperor's Aresenal, Etc.

Hi everyone!

I just felt like commenting this a little bit... so bear with me ;-)

On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Joseph E. Walsh wrote:
> T4 Deluxe
> ---------
[...]
> Also, on a system-by-system basis, he is making sure everything works
> properly, is clearly written, and is optimally liad out (i.e., if you
> read the text once, you should be able to follow the tables with ease
> every time thereafter). 

Wow... this basically means that all the sections need to be rewritten
from scratch.  I'm really curious whether this time it works out (and
again I was stupid enough to pre-order to copies of the Deluxe edition...
it's really his last chance as far as I am concerned).

> Skills:  The skill tables will be restated to also show skills grouped
> by which characteristic each is related to. 

Hopefully there *also* will be a table listing the skills sorted by topic
(e.g. military skills, scientific skills, wilderness skills, whatever),
since it's very annoying having to sift a large table if you just want to
quickly design a mercenary or whatever.

I also hope that the skill list will be more complete.

> Personal Combat: I don't know what changes will be made to this, but
> given some of the changes in the task system, this will have to be
> changed at least slightly as well.  Also, we know Marc will have better,
> more complete, tables for combat.

How about designing a realistic and fast combat system without requiring
(many) additional tables?  That would be a good design.  More tables don't
make for a better combat system.

> Every Adventure Begins and Ends at a Starport: you've seen a draft of
> this chapter; it was posted a couple of weeks ago.  Essentially, it
> states that the starport is the starting line and finish line of every
> adventure.  It also provides details on what sort of facilities are in
> existence on starports.

Personally I'd rather like to see a more extensive section on many
different ways of handling a Traveller campaign.  The starport plot might
work for some people but I find it too limiting if it's used as the sole
hook to start adventures (it somehow feels like dungeon-crawling in
space... "You meet at Starport XCVII and suddenly a stranger with a long
white beard approaches you...").

Soory for being suspicious, but the past failures really make me a little
jumpy :-)

Ciao,

Thomas Biskup.

 

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 17:29:56 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)

On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Mike Sellers wrote:

> Okay, to steer this back on topic somewhat, why don't we have small
> submarine fighters, perhaps deployable from a attack sub or a boomer?
> These could be small manned subs or even drones; presumably even a small
> number of these would make normal tactics difficult for the opposing sub.
> 
> And given that for some reason we _don't_ have these, what (if anything)
> does that say about the viability of small space fighters?  Thoughts?

We do have these...they're called 'torpedoes' ;-)

Actually, The Hunt for Red October implied, somewhere I think, that we do
have 'decoys' of some sort that go off to fool enemy sensors, much like
the old Quail drones that B-52's used to carry to fool SAM's. (or maybe I
saw or read it somewhere else...

     We may well not have them because so much of submarine warfare is
finding out where your enemy is, and blowing him up, hopefully without
making enough noise to let them know where you are. 

     The use of space fighters against capital ships is based more on
the paradigm of fighter aircraft attacking bombers or, more accurately,
dive bombers and torpedo planes attacking capital ships, a la the Pacific
fighting during WWII.

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 17:20:36 -0800
From: jdconnors@genmagic.com (joel connors)
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

At 04:40 PM 4/1/97 -0700, you wrote:
>MrkGrismer@aol.com wrote:
>> 
>
>> In my universe, to effectively grapple, you'd have to knock out the
>> bridge or computer so that nobody's steering the ship.>>>> 
>> So then, wouldn't a ship with greater agility be able to cancel the agility
>> of a less agile ship?
>Well, no. The ship with the greater agility can out-maneuver the
>other ship. To match vectors, however, requires that the "victim"
>ship not be "jiggling" at all relative to the "captor" ship. 
>If my car chases your car and my car can out-maneuver yours, I
>still won't be able to pull up alongside and pass you something 
>through the window if you're trying to evade me. I'll either not
>be able to get close or I'll hit you.
>I disagree. The computer of the pirate ship can't match random moves.
>It can't anticipate the moves of the other ship.
>
>

Okay,

To throw some variables into the mix.

A star fighter, or small vehicle is immensely more maneuverable that a
Starship. 

A small craft attempting to hit a nearby object with grapples, does not need
it to hold still to hit it.

While dangerous, jumping between vehicles is possible (Biplane to Biplane,
Truck to Truck, Boat to Boat).

With these variables in mind how would this modify the arguments.

Example- A small 5 ton grav driven spacecraft intercepts and matches
relative velocity with a 200 ton free trader. Using multiple grapples the
small craft latches onto the larger ship and reals itself in.

Different Variable Arguments

If you cannot see it, how can you dodge it?

How low a signature does a Grav craft have, how low if it is stealthed?

How capable our Starship sensor at detecting a very small craft when it is
less than a half klick away, a 100 yards, a 100 feet?

Even if a Starship can detect at short range, how much is directly available
to the pilot? At some point this data is so fast that a sensor tech has to
pass the info along.

Example-

A small low signature craft (use the same 5 ton example) Matches course with
a starship and gets with in its sensor coverage before ever trying to grapple.

****
Thanks everyone for the comments, this is really helping me to refine this
concept I am working on. 

Joel Connors
"Prepare to repel boarders!"

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

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 17:03:43 -0500
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: KBv2.0

From: rdhough@orca.bc.ca (Richard Hough)
Subject: Re: KBv2.0
 Who wrote:
>>>
IMHO, KBv2.0 is a vast improvement over the existing task system. Marc
and IG should seriously consider it for Traveller Deluxe.
- - --
Richard (not an employee of KBv2.0, just a satisfied customer) Hough
rdhough@orca.bc.ca
<<<

And I agree. Drop the half and lets go with something that works! 
Bob(not an employee of KBv2.0, just a ANOTHER satisfied customer)Sanders
bsanders@amghome.com

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

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 20:44:44 -0500
From: Mark Urbin <eclipse@ultranet.com>
Subject: Deluxe T4 art

Vanya wrote:
>>As part getting rid of the typos, IG must have recommisioned new art for
>>the small arms.
>New art?  What was wrong with the art in _The Traveller Book_? Or the
stuff DGP 
>used on those equipment record sheets.  There are *tons* of good Traveller
art 
>already produced.  Why not use it?

  As long at it's not that gawd-awful page of non-functional small arms
that was included in the T4 book.


- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
eclipse@ultranet.com -- These opinions are mine, no one else wants `em.
http://www.ultranet.com/~eclipse/  -- Politics should be limited in scope 
to war, protection of property, and the occasional precautionary 
beheading of a member of the ruling class."  -- P.J. O'Rourke 
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 17:27:09 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Hospitalers

In mail you write:

> Perhaps one of our UK contributors can correct me if I amm mistaken, but do
> not the Hospitallers (sic?) still exist in Great Britain, under the name of
> St John's Ambulance?

They exist in the *US*. A couple of people on an SCA mailing list I get
are also Hospitallers, and there's a Templar or two as well!

The orders are around. Whether they are "properly" descended from the
originals or not is another matter, and one on which I am not foolish
enough to express an opinion.

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 17:15:15 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Templars

In mail you write:

> On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 21:37:16 +0000, Mused <marz@HotStar.net> wrote...
>
>>       It is my experience that any secret organization that has a
>> name is a pretty poor secret organization.
>     In YOUR EXPERIENCE?!?  And how many secret organizations have you
> belonged to then?!

He could tell you, but then they'd have to kill him *and* you.

>> The best secret organization is named after the fact, and does not,
>> under any circumstances, call themselves Illuminati, Templars,
>> Hospitallers, Star Chamber or such.
>     Unless it's requisite that they have a public identity, the CIA
> springs to mind.  Or they're part of a Government and need an
> internal working name, the NSA is a good example of this.

Aka "No Such Agency".

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 17:35:50 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Hivers

In mail you write:

> On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 GDWGAMES@aol.com wrote:
>
> Hmm why? why not insect?

Because hive like *insects* have been done to death in SF.

> Ive noticed that there are no insect liek lifeform nor tree like lifeform.
> Is there a reason for this?

Contrary to all the bad SF movies (and not a few bad books), the laws
of physics don't allow giant insects. And once you get rid of the
exoskeleton, and add lungs and a "real" circulatory system, the result
doesn't look anything like an insect.

Intelligent "trees" has both been overdone, and pretty well shown to be
really unlikely. Non-mobile lifeforms don't have any *need* for
intelligence. And intelligence requires a lot of energy, something that
photosynthetic lifeforms can't easily spare.

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 18:38:19 -0800
From: "David P. Summers" <dsummers@mail.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Hospitalers

Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:36:19 +1000 (EST), Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
>Hmmm, this may be the case, but for all intents and purposes they do not
>exist, and they were dismembered.  The reason they were disbanded was
>because they had past there time, and, as an orginisation they were no
>longer useful.

The point is that they are taking the conspiracy theory that
the Templars didn't disband, but instead became a secret
organization, and using it as a secret organization in
Traveller (You can't have an illuminate campaign if you
don't have any secrect conspiracies :-).

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

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

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 21:33:19 -0500
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: TNE: RC Tac-Codes

fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin W. Cain) wrote:=20
>>>
Has anyone got a registry (list) for tac-codes for use in TNE? =20
SNIP
I'd be interested in seeing what tac-codes others have come up with...
<<<

I do not play TNE, nor use tac codes, (If my players want nick names
they can use them, I rather not make it a mandatory part of the game)
But I may be of some help for those who do.=20

Military pilots have call signs used during radio traffic. Most of the
time they are printed on the side of the pilot=92s aircraft. All you have
to do is find a base and check out some of the cool names on the birds!

>From my F-14 squadron:
Cmdr. "Smoker" CO
Lt. Cmdr. "Boomer" XO
Lt.=92s:
Snake
Four eyes
Psycho
Tooly
Tappy (last name Oka) :-)
Buck (last name Rogers)
Buck Buck (also last name Rogers, we had two!)
GetNo (Long story) :)
Lights (last name Golightly)
Sandy (see below)
Muddy
Puke (Not because he did, but because everyone who flew with him did!)
Aces
Bolter

...and many more that I can not remember right now.

Most of these names came from something they did in training or on board
ship. Example: Sandy clipped a dune over Oman with the ventral fins,
came back to the ship missing both and sand pouring out of the holes.
Had a hard time explaining why he was so low to the skipper. Boomer got
his name for breaking the sound barrier over the airbase when he was in
training. That was over twenty years prior to my knowing him, but he
still carried the name.=20

Hope that helps!

Bob

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 00:14:34 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Hospitalers

On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Leonard Erickson wrote:

> In mail you write:
> 
> > Perhaps one of our UK contributors can correct me if I amm mistaken, but do
> > not the Hospitallers (sic?) still exist in Great Britain, under the name of
> > St John's Ambulance?
> 
> They exist in the *US*. A couple of people on an SCA mailing list I get
> are also Hospitallers, and there's a Templar or two as well!
> 
> The orders are around. Whether they are "properly" descended from the
> originals or not is another matter, and one on which I am not foolish
> enough to express an opinion.
> 

Leonard, Im foolish enougth :)

The Hospitaliers do exist, you can actually still join them.  They
maintain an Embassy in the Vatican and there Headquarters are in the
Bastion of St.John, Valletta, Malta.  

They drive around in Black jaguars with the white Cross of St.John
Emblazoned on the side of the number plates.  Which is the traditional
colour of the Tunic that the Knights wear/wore.

Now, im willing to believe that you know some hospitaliers, but Templars?
Just because someone says there a Templar, doesnt mean they are.
Templars DO NOT EXIST as an order.  

Since these two orders were both religious (Christian) orders, then the
final say comes from the Vatican.  The oldest, and only remaining order of
knighthood (by order i mean an organised group with representation) are
the Hospitaliers.  Conspiarcy or not, they dont technically exist, so i
would doubt anyone who says there a Templar, desceded from that Prussian
order.

By 2 credits.

michl

electric RAIN                      http://www.electric-rain.net/


Hells logic consists in preventing murder by murdering all murderers.
- -The Singer

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

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 19:46:56 -0700
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

joel connors wrote:
> 
>> Okay,
> 
> To throw some variables into the mix.
> 

Sure! This is fun.

> A star fighter, or small vehicle is immensely more maneuverable that a
> Starship.
> 
Naturally. Although, MT rules state that the maximum agility you
can have is 6. This implies (although a bit unbelievable) that my
Imperial Star Destroyer, if designed with agility-6, is just as
maneuverable as the TIE fighters it launches.

However, in general fighters are more maneuverable than larger ships.

> A small craft attempting to hit a nearby object with grapples, does not need
> it to hold still to hit it.
> 

Are you using some specialized grappling equipment? I was assuming
you're simply trying to link airlocks or something similar. What
you're saying makes sense if you have specialized equipment for this
purpose (which most ships, I'd argue, don't carry). If you do have
this stuff designed, I'd like to see it! I'll probably end up 
using it in my campaign.

> While dangerous, jumping between vehicles is possible (Biplane to Biplane,
> Truck to Truck, Boat to Boat).
> 

Not if one of the vehicles is trying to avoid exactly that sort of
maneuver. Evading such a move makes that move extremely risky.

> Different Variable Arguments
> 
> If you cannot see it, how can you dodge it?
> 

In MT, 25000 is considered visual range. Thus, you can see it.

> How low a signature does a Grav craft have, how low if it is stealthed?

Irrelevant, if you're in visual range.
> 
> How capable our Starship sensor at detecting a very small craft when it is
> less than a half klick away, a 100 yards, a 100 feet?
> 

See above. You simply look out the window.

> Even if a Starship can detect at short range, how much is directly available
> to the pilot? At some point this data is so fast that a sensor tech has to
> pass the info along.

In starship combat, each turn is 20 minutes. That's plenty of time
for the pilot to react. Sorry, I don't own T4 yet so I don't know
if its turns are different.

- -- 
Erwin Fritz
Unix/NT/LAN Guy
Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd.
http://www.glja.com

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 19:08:47 -0800
From: "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Hospitalers

>At 11:20 PM 4/1/97 +1000, you wrote:
>
>>As a side note, i have noticed someone creating an "order" for traveller
>>based on the Templars.  I think it would make more sense if it was based
>>on the Hospitaliers, because the Templars were disbanded during the 1300
>>and most of there wealth/propety was given to the Hospitaliers.
>
>that's what they *wanted* you to think.  there is considerable evidence that
>the Templars existed, in one form or another, well beyond their
>dismemberment at the hands of Philip II.

>For a look at the sort of grand conspiracy we're considering, read "Holy
>Blood, Holy Grail".. It talks a great deal about the Templars, the Prieure
>du sion, and other shadowy groups.

Katherine Kurtz (of Dyrni fame) has written a book on this subject it's a
collection of short stories that range from the founding of the order
through modern, and maybe into the future.  I'm not sure where my copy is,
storage I think, so I can't go into specifics.  The book also ties into
"the Adept" series, with one of the short stories staring Adam Sinclair.

There still exists a "Templar Order", I've no idea if they have anything to
do with the original order or not.  I can't even remember if they claim
such ties.
I think Katherine Kurtz gives some information on them in the forward.  I
think they are some sort of charitable organization that's actually based
in the US.

               Zane




| Zane H. Healy                    | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh@ix.netcom.com (primary)  | Linux Enthusiast          |
| healyzh@holonet.net (alternate)  | Mac Programmer            |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------+
| For Empire of the Petal Throne, and Traveller Role Playing   |
| see http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/                      |

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 18:55:52 -0800
From: "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)

>At 09:40 AM 4/1/97 -0700, Bruce Johnson wrote:
>>On another, more off topic note, last month, a bunch of Columbian drug
>>smugglers were busted trying to purchase a used Soviet submarine,
>>presumably for smuggling purposes.
>
>Okay, to steer this back on topic somewhat, why don't we have small
>submarine fighters, perhaps deployable from a attack sub or a boomer?
>These could be small manned subs or even drones; presumably even a small
>number of these would make normal tactics difficult for the opposing sub.
>
>And given that for some reason we _don't_ have these, what (if anything)
>does that say about the viability of small space fighters?  Thoughts?

Simply put it's a case of Pressure versus Vacuum.  Note that the Space
Shuttle is capable of launching other smaller space craft, as exibited by
satellites.

Think of a Sub's torpedo tubes.  You would have to have a simular device
for recovery of the craft for a sub to handle fighters.  About the only
thing I can think of that would handle it right now would be a Typhoon, or
possibly a Ohio class.  Even then I don't think they are big enough.  You
would have to totally remove the missle silo's, and use that space for the
launch recoverly machinery.  This modification would then most likely mean
the sub wouldn't be able to go as deep.

BTW we've already got drones, they are called torpedoes.  Modern torpedoes
are far distant from the clockwork gadget of WWII.

Also I think the Seal's have some sort of Mini-sub that is deployed from
our sub's.  Same with the old Soviet special forces (whose name escapes
me).  Of course this could make my above stated opinions invalid.  What can
I say, I was a "blackshoe", not a "bubblehead", and always thought the
surface Navy was a better guide for Space based warfare.

Personally I think spacecraft that would be best able to handle fighters
wouldn't be atmosphere capable.  But there is nothing saying they couldn't
be built that way.

               Zane


| Zane H. Healy                    | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh@ix.netcom.com (primary)  | Linux Enthusiast          |
| healyzh@holonet.net (alternate)  | Mac Programmer            |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------+
| For Empire of the Petal Throne, and Traveller Role Playing   |
| see http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/                      |

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 22:42:30 -0500 (EST)
From: CMcknight@aol.com
Subject: Re: Templars

In a message dated 97-04-01 22:39:37 EST, you write:

> >> The best secret organization is named after the fact, and does not,
>  >> under any circumstances, call themselves Illuminati, Templars,
>  >> Hospitallers, Star Chamber or such.
>  >     Unless it's requisite that they have a public identity, the CIA
>  > springs to mind.  Or they're part of a Government and need an
>  > internal working name, the NSA is a good example of this.
>  
>  Aka "No Such Agency".
>  

Aw shucks, and here I thought it meant Not Secret Anymore.... ;-)

Chuck McKnight
cmcknight@aol.com
cmcknigh@gte.net

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

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 22:53:18 -0500
From: Jeff Harvey <jharvey@nlci.com>
Subject: Ancients?

Okay, I'm a rookie referee, so take it easy on me.

I was wondering where I could (in Traveller literature) find information
about the Ancients.  One of my PC's thought that it might be interesting
to begin a search for an Ancient's site.  

     I was thinking that to find an Ancient's sight, would be a life-long
goal.  Just getting through all of the archeological literature, to find
some starting clues, would take years.  I could really use some
information on this.  Thanks in advance.

                              Jeff

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 01:07:38 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Hospitalers

On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, David P. Summers wrote:

Cool.  As i said i wasnt reading the thread.  Will you have the masons and
the Illuminati?

And why does the american $100 bill  (or maybe its all of them) have the
symbol of the Illuminati on it?



> Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:36:19 +1000 (EST), Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
> >Hmmm, this may be the case, but for all intents and purposes they do not
> >exist, and they were dismembered.  The reason they were disbanded was
> >because they had past there time, and, as an orginisation they were no
> >longer useful.
> 
> The point is that they are taking the conspiracy theory that
> the Templars didn't disband, but instead became a secret
> organization, and using it as a secret organization in
> Traveller (You can't have an illuminate campaign if you
> don't have any secrect conspiracies :-).
> 
> _______________________________________________________________
> DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov
> 
> 
> 


c'ya hate to be ya,

michl

electric RAIN                      http://www.electric-rain.net/


Hells logic consists in preventing murder by murdering all murderers.
- -The Singer

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1121
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Wednesday, April 2 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1122



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Hivers
Re: Hospitalers
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: Ancients?
Re: Ancients?
[none]
Re: Templars
Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)
Re: Ancients?
Blackshoes Unite
Re: closed systems
Re: Prize taking (Boarding Action)
Re: Hospitalers
Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
Diaspora and Oldexpanses sectors
Re: realistic gauss gun design
Re: Misjumps

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 01:12:41 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Hivers

On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Leonard Erickson wrote:

> In mail you write:
> 
> > On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 GDWGAMES@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Hmm why? why not insect?
> 
> Because hive like *insects* have been done to death in SF.
> 
> > Ive noticed that there are no insect liek lifeform nor tree like lifeform.
> > Is there a reason for this?
> 
> Contrary to all the bad SF movies (and not a few bad books), the laws
> of physics don't allow giant insects. And once you get rid of the
> exoskeleton, and add lungs and a "real" circulatory system, the result
> doesn't look anything like an insect.

Thats intresting, so something to do with the weight of the exoskeleton i
assume.  

> 
> Intelligent "trees" has both been overdone, and pretty well shown to be
> really unlikely. Non-mobile lifeforms don't have any *need* for
> intelligence. And intelligence requires a lot of energy, something that
> photosynthetic lifeforms can't easily spare.

Who says they would be immobile?

c'ya hate to be ya,

michl

electric RAIN                      http://www.electric-rain.net/


Hells logic consists in preventing murder by murdering all murderers.
- -The Singer

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 20:48:17 -0800
From: "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Hospitalers

>Hmmm, this may be the case, but for all intents and purposes they do not
>exist, and they were dismembered.  The reason they were disbanded was
>because they had past there time, and, as an orginisation they were no
>longer useful.

The Templar Knights were disbanded because they had way more wealth than
was good for them.  The King of France, and others wanted to get that
wealth.  That is why they were disbanded.  The Templars were more than a
fighting order, they were also bankers and controlled much of the wealth in
Europe.

Interestingly most of the wealth supposedly disappeared along with
some/most of the order when they were shut down.

               Zane


| Zane H. Healy                    | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh@ix.netcom.com (primary)  | Linux Enthusiast          |
| healyzh@holonet.net (alternate)  | Mac Programmer            |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------+
| For Empire of the Petal Throne, and Traveller Role Playing   |
| see http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/                      |

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 21:51:01 -0700 (MST)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

 
> A star fighter, or small vehicle is immensely more maneuverable that a
> Starship. 

Meaning it can _rotate_ faster (change facing) than a bigger ship.
 
> A small craft attempting to hit a nearby object with grapples, does not need
> it to hold still to hit it.

What if the target is rotating along its long axis (a typical
maneuver to bring the turrets to bear)?
 
> Example- A small 5 ton grav driven spacecraft intercepts and matches
> relative velocity with a 200 ton free trader. Using multiple grapples the
> small craft latches onto the larger ship and reals itself in.

The target is rotating and reels the 5 ton ship in instead.  Because
of this the 5 ton ship ends up next door, but pointing the wrong
way.  The troops have to crawl onto the target and cut through (and
shoulfd they slip they go zinging off since the target is
spinning).
 
> If you cannot see it, how can you dodge it?
 
Evasion isn't the same as dodging.  Dodging does imply you know
where they other guy is, evasion tries to be random to avoid
prediction.

> How capable our Starship sensor at detecting a very small craft when it is
> less than a half klick away, a 100 yards, a 100 feet?

They can count the pores on the troops faces.

> Even if a Starship can detect at short range, how much is directly available
> to the pilot? At some point this data is so fast that a sensor tech has to
> pass the info along.

Let the computer evade/shoot/whatever (point defense does this
now).
 
> A small low signature craft (use the same 5 ton example) Matches course with
> a starship and gets with in its sensor coverage before ever trying to grapple.

It's detected a long way before (remember that if a 5 ton ship can
get that close, for real warfare 5 ton missiles will kill
battleships).

- -Merrick

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 02:19:44 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Ancients?

On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Jeff Harvey wrote:

The Droyne ALien Module outlines the msytery and it solution.

> Okay, I'm a rookie referee, so take it easy on me.
> 
> I was wondering where I could (in Traveller literature) find information
> about the Ancients.  One of my PC's thought that it might be interesting
> to begin a search for an Ancient's site.  
> 
>    I was thinking that to find an Ancient's sight, would be a life-long
> goal.  Just getting through all of the archeological literature, to find
> some starting clues, would take years.  I could really use some
> information on this.  Thanks in advance.
> 
>                             Jeff
> 


Peace,

michl

electric RAIN                      http://www.electric-rain.net/


Pilgram: "God, can you be merciful and send me off to hell and
       lock me in forever?"

God:  "Pilgram, I will not send you there, but if you chose to
       go there, I could never lock you out."
The Singer

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

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 22:00:44 -0700
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Ancients?

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- --------------1D024D356724
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jeff Harvey wrote:
> 
> I was wondering where I could (in Traveller literature) find information
> about the Ancients.  One of my PC's thought that it might be interesting
> to begin a search for an Ancient's site.
> 

Here's something I scooped from this list a while back. Hope it
helps!


- -- 
Erwin Fritz
Unix/NT/LAN Guy
Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd.
http://www.glja.com

- --------------1D024D356724
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="ancients.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="ancients.txt"

From: GREI5001@uni-trier.de
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 16:07:36 -0800
Subject: The Ancient fascination

Hi guys, here is a first draft of the first entries of my ancients site.
Any suggestions, additions, new entries or other comments are
appreciated.

>                              Ancient Sites
>=20
>                         throughout known space:
>=20
>       ATTENTION: THIS INFORMATION IS INTENDED FOR REFEREES ONLY!
>                            PLAYERS KEEP OUT!
>=20
> It is supposed to be a handy reference for referees who are looking
> for additional information about the Ancients and inspiration for
> their own creations.
>=20
> It details those locations, where the Ancients left visible traces for
> modern Imperial people to discover and marvel over. The Ancient period
> dates back to -500 000 Imperial, when they burst into space and
> expanded to hundreds of worlds, creating colonies, bases and
> settlements when there was no other spacefaring race around, up to
> -300 000 when they apparently destroyed themselves in a 2000 year long
> war. The Ancients are also those responsible for transplanting
> humaniti to the stars. The total number of confirmed Ancients sites
> within the imperium is in excess of 200. Their home remains unknown.
>=20
> The Sites are sorted by location. They have the following
> classifications:
>=20
> * Attraction: Site is widely known and a Tourist attraction.
> * Known: Known to part of the public, mostly restricted access.
> * Secret: A well kept secret by Imperial authorities, not general
> knowledge.
> * Unknown: Neither Imperial authorities nor public have discovered
> this site yet.
>=20
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>=20
> Spinward Marches:
>=20
>      Regina Subsector:
>=20
>           Regina (UNKNOWN):
>=20
>                The Regina System contains a small Pocket Universe,
>                created by Grandfather. It contains the small star
>                Braycossa, created by Grandfather from a Gas Giant
>                taken from real-space Regina, and three other worlds:
>                Elkyulm, Kraldosk, Prissuls, all on the same orbit in
>                equidistant positions. They are connected by a
>                "Stairway to the Stars" a chain of 100km "pearls" which
>                contain teleportals connecting each to the next pearl
>                or planet in line, thus enabling one to "walk" from
>                planet to planet.
>=20
>                Elkyulm: This planet is inhabited by mechanical robots
>                programmed to observe and study the astrophysical life
>                of Braycossa.
>=20
>                Kraldosk: Inhabited by biological robots, which
>                strongly resemble humans, and are grown in an automated
>                vats. The only distinction is that they are all missing
>                the little left finger. A human servant of Grandfather
>                from the Ancient war, Na Kradolsk, was placed in charge
>                of this world, is still alive on this world, being able
>                to prolong his life with the vat.
>=20
>                Prissuls: Small, five-legged life forms sensitive to
>                the light of Braycossa inhabit this world. Originally
>                herbivores, they have changed with the wavelenths to
>                become omni- and carnivorous.
>=20
>                Ways to site: Recently, human robots of Kradolsk have
>                created a portal to real space and established a secret
>                restearch outpost decoyed as a small store in Regni, a
>                major city on Regina.
>=20
>                Grandfather left the system in -290.000 and hasn=B4t
>                returned since.
>=20
>                Source: Challenge Magazine #27, "Grandfather=B4s Worlds"
>                Marc W. Miller
>=20
>      Rhylanor Subsector:
>=20
>           Fulacin (UNKNOWN):
>=20
>                Somewhere in the wilderness of Fulacin, underneath a
>                building of the now defunct Octagon society, long dark
>                catacombs lead down to the site. The walls of the
>                corridors and rooms are of shining silvery metal. The
>                whole complex is still in working condition. In one
>                room, 36 Droyne of the Warrior-caste are preserved in
>                stasis. Fidlling with any controls in the room releases
>                them. Another room is occupied by a large globe,
>                halfway inserted into the floor. It is an accurate
>                model of Fulacin (1:600 000), complete with
>                cloud-formations and oceans. It is fully up to date,
>                the clouds move, etc.
>=20
>                This site is the main focus of the Classic Traveller
>                Adventure: "Twilight=B4s Peak" by Marc W. Miller. It
>                contains more detailed descriptions of the site.
>=20
>           Rhylanor (Attraction/????)
>=20
>                The site on Rhylanor is carved into the face of Mount
>                Zithar. Tours take place regularly. On the inside,
>                metal pipes and tubes run off in every direction, with
>                no apparent function. In fact, tunnel following the
>                pipes go on for many miles, kris-krossing and creating
>                a perfect labyrinth.
>=20
>                This site is the main push for the MegaTraveller II
>                computer game, in which the machinery activates and
>                releases an endless amount of toxic slime threatening
>                to cover up all of Rhylanor, if not stopped in time!
>=20
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>=20
> Corridor:
>=20
>      Ian Subsector:
>=20
>           Antiquity (ATTRACTION):
>=20
>                The Antiquity Ancients site, discovered in 385, is one
>                of the few sites which are open to Tourists. It=B4s
>                museum displays many wondrous and mysteriuos artifacts,
>                many of which are still in working condition, although
>                their uses mostly remain a mystery. .
>=20
>                Imperial Enzyclopedia, Library Data
>=20
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ???? (in Vargr Extends)
>=20
>      Knaeleng Subsector:
>=20
>           Tireen: (ATTRACTION)
>=20
>                The Tireen system features a Multiworld rosette,
>                created by the Ancients.
>=20
>                Imperial Enzyclopedia, Library Data
>=20
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/4061/ancients.html

- --=20
Just my 2 EuroCents,

V.A.G.      =20
- ------  Volker A. Greimann, also known as: Grei5001@uni-trier.de  ----
- -- Am Weidengraben 86,C6 - 54296 Trier - Germany - T+F: +49651148846 -
- ---- Student of Law, Gamer, Illuminatus Primus, Slayer of Windows95 --
- -----  "Don't hold me up: I am just barely ahead of insanity!!!" -----



- --------------1D024D356724--

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:34:40 -0800
From: Mike Linsenmayer <mike-l@sure.net>
Subject: [none]

Test Message

New Site http://www.sure.net/~mike-l

I got lots of Traveller stuff for sale.

TEST

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

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 22:28:57 -0800
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: Templars

At 10:42 PM 4/1/97 -0500, CMcknight@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 97-04-01 22:39:37 EST, you write:
>
>> >> The best secret organization is named after the fact, and does not,
>>  >> under any circumstances, call themselves Illuminati, Templars,
>>  >> Hospitallers, Star Chamber or such.
>>  >     Unless it's requisite that they have a public identity, the CIA
>>  > springs to mind.  Or they're part of a Government and need an
>>  > internal working name, the NSA is a good example of this.
>>  
>>  Aka "No Such Agency".
>>  
>Aw shucks, and here I thought it meant Not Secret Anymore.... ;-)

No, it _really_ means "And now we have to kill you", but the name is in
code. :)

- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 08:19:59 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)

>Also I think the Seal's have some sort of Mini-sub that is deployed from
>our sub's.  Same with the old Soviet special forces (whose name escapes
>me).  Of course this could make my above stated opinions invalid.  What can
>I say, I was a "blackshoe", not a "bubblehead", and always thought the
>surface Navy was a better guide for Space based warfare.

In that I think you're wrong. Space warfare will resemble sub warfare more
than surface action. Run silent and if detected you're dead. The problem is
that Traveller space coombat and mythology is based on large fleets
clashing a la surface ships of WWII.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 08:16:27 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Ancients?

>        I was thinking that to find an Ancient's sight, would be a life-long
>goal.  Just getting through all of the archeological literature, to find
>some starting clues, would take years.  I could really use some
>information on this.  Thanks in advance.
>
>                                                Jeff
There's an ancient site open to the public in the Corridor sector I think.
An old Traveller Digest (I'll dig it up and post it) covered a nice
adventure there. The ultimate IMHO adventure dealing with old cryptic
books, long searches and "dungeon" crawling into an undiscovered ancient
site was Twilights Peak. It is a CT adventure and probably hard to find but
definately the best. The "Secret of the Ancients" is another CT adventure
that tells the "real" story of the ancients. Boring and shallow adventure
but interesting facts.

My early rebellion era Traveller campaign has been running on what came off
after the Twilights peak adventure for almost three years now.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Wed, 01 Jan 1997 23:25:49 -0800
From: Evyn gutierrez <wmacdude@concentric.net>
Subject: Blackshoes Unite

> From: Thomas Biskup <tb@saranxis.ruhr.de>

> > Skills:  The skill tables will be restated to also show skills grouped
> > by which characteristic each is related to.
> 
> Hopefully there *also* will be a table listing the skills sorted by topic
> (e.g. military skills, scientific skills, wilderness skills, whatever),
> since it's very annoying having to sift a large table if you just want to
> quickly design a mercenary or whatever.
> 
> I also hope that the skill list will be more complete.

I agree wading throgh the Discription section for skills is a
stone cold bitch, 'specially when you are teaching new players


> From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)

> Contrary to all the bad SF movies (and not a few bad books), the laws
> of physics don't allow giant insects. And once you get rid of the
> exoskeleton, and add lungs and a "real" circulatory system, the result
> doesn't look anything like an insect.
 
Gee, I seem to recall something about Insects of unsual size
that lived here on earth in the time before man. 
Six foot long dragon flies, etc, etc...


> From: "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh@ix.netcom.com>

> Also I think the Seal's have some sort of Mini-sub that is deployed from
> our sub's.  Same with the old Soviet special forces (whose name escapes
> me).  Of course this could make my above stated opinions invalid. 
 
The last I heard the seal didn't have a mini-sub the swimmer delievery
vehicle is a converted attack sub. Some spc.war and the sub fleet is the
reason behind this. Spetnaz does have them thou. That cool and cool 
Tee Shirts...
 
> What can I say, I was a "blackshoe", not a "bubblehead", and always thought the
> surface Navy was a better guide for Space based warfare.

Cool, Somebodys gotta keep Kiwi in bizness. And also to whoop some damn 
airdale ass. (Gee, can you tell this Deckape saw some carrier duty)

> From: Jeff Harvey <jharvey@nlci.com>
> Subject: Ancients?
> 
> Okay, I'm a rookie referee, so take it easy on me.

Okay,

> I was wondering where I could (in Traveller literature) find information
> about the Ancients.  One of my PC's thought that it might be interesting
> to begin a search for an Ancient's site.
> 
>         I was thinking that to find an Ancient's sight, would be a life-long
> goal.  Just getting through all of the archeological literature, to find
> some starting clues, would take years.  I could really use some
> information on this.  Thanks in advance.

That depends, if your nice, leed them around for a few years, then let
them find something. Oooorrrrr,, You could let them find something right
of the bat that totally yanks them around when ever the whimm strikes 
you. (Had group of players find a teleporter that was in code and base
21, bounced them around for 10 game years with that.

Evyn

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 08:18:17 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: closed systems

> On another, more off topic note, last month, a bunch of Columbian drug
> smugglers were busted trying to purchase a used Soviet submarine,
> presumably for smuggling purposes.

We got one, too.  Docked at the quay in neighbouring New Westminster.
The current owners bought the Russian diesel boat for $100,000 (I
think) and have opened it up as a tourist attraction :)



James W. Lindsay      Vancouver, British Columbia

"WIZARD PARKING ONLY"... All Others Will Be Toad.

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 10:49:34 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Prize taking (Boarding Action)

>There is a problem compared with a missile interception---you have
>to match courses.  So you need to end up in the same place at the
>same time, _and_ you have to share the target's vector.  Basically
>this means intercepting the target with a very low closing velocity.

Can you say airbags ;)


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 00:36:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Hospitalers

> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:36:19 +1000 (EST)
> From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
> 
> On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Douglas E. Berry wrote:
> > At 11:20 PM 4/1/97 +1000, someone wrote:
> > 
> > >As a side note, i have noticed someone creating an "order" for traveller
> > >based on the Templars.  I think it would make more sense if it was based
> > >on the Hospitaliers, because the Templars were disbanded during the 1300
> > >and most of there wealth/propety was given to the Hospitaliers.
> > 
> > that's what they *wanted* you to think.  there is considerable evidence that
> > the Templars existed, in one form or another, well beyond their
> > dismemberment at the hands of Philip II.
> 
> Hmmm, this may be the case, but for all intents and purposes they do not
> exist, and they were dismembered.  The reason they were disbanded was
> because they had past there time, and, as an orginisation they were no
> longer useful.

No, they were "disbanded" (such an innocent word, to cover what happened)
by Philip II of France, in collaboration with other nobles and the Pope,
when they became too great a power in Europe, under too little control,
with too much wealth.

> My only point is, if your going to create an equivalent furturistic
> military order, based on an Earth Religious/Military order it would make
> more sense to base them on (or make them an extenstion of) the
> Hospitaliers as opposed to the Templars, since teh Hospitaliers were NOT
> disbanded, exist today, and have left a lasting testament to there beliefs
> - - the hospital.

One could argue that the Templars survived their persecution by going
undercover (in the Hospitalers, among the Teutonic Knights, in Scotland,
and so forth) for a time and re-emerging as the Rosicrucians, the Masons,
and so forth.  And they too left a lasting testament to their beliefs --
the bank. :)  Interestingly, the best book ever written about the US
Federal Reserve system is title "Secrets of the Temple"...

> Then again, I havnt read much of the Templar thread, so cant say this is
> what the creator wants. 

There's no one 'creator' on this thread...it's been a synergistic group
effort.  Or so it would appear, in any case.

> So why are they called 'Templars'?  They dont seem to reflect there
> namesakes if there just scientists (or researchers).

The name could be a common slang shorthand, originating inside or outside
the group, triggered by their many similarities with the old Terran
Templars, and encouraged (perhaps consciously fostered) by their unproven
roots (among other sources) in these very Templars.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 10:55:19 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors

>there is a distinct difference between the ship's
>maneuver drives (responsible for thrust in the forward direction)
>and the ship's steering jets. The latter handle any close maneuvering
>like docking. The number and size of the jets comes from the ship's
>agility rating and reflect the ship's ability to "jiggle" around
>to avoid incoming shots.

The attitude jets does NOT make the ship jiggle around and thus making it
harder to hit. It changes the ships facing and thus its maneuver drives
acceleration vector making it harder to hit. Also note that on larger ships
you'd need quite a lot of manuever acc variation to affect hit probability
at all (see my earlier post ["Spacecombat assumptions"] with formulaes for
this).


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 11:58:18 +0200
From: Nicolas LEJEUNE <nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr>
Subject: Diaspora and Oldexpanses sectors

Hi, 

I'm looking for some already collapsed data on Diaspora and Old Expanses
sector.

In fact I've already some documents in the GDW books but I was wondering if
ther would be a file containing it, so I wouldn't have to type all of them :-)

I've look on the Missouri Archives but I have found only pre-collapse data.

If one of you have URL, please send them

Thank in advance


- -----------
Nicolas LEJEUNE
   Engineer, Paris, France
   Traveller (TNE), and WhiteWolf RPG
   Mailto:nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 11:42:35 +0100
From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: realistic gauss gun design

One comment and one suggestion:

My comment is that superconductivity in high T_c materials tends to 
break down at high currents. (Perhaps the order of 1A? Not enormous, 
anyway.)  Superconductors aren't necessarily the way to make a 
railgun.

Having said which, I also believe that crystalliron could be turned 
into normal iron by a couple of taps with a hammer, so maybe a little 
suspension of disbelief is called for here.

My suggestion for varying muzzle velocity is to vary the power 
applied to the dart by changing the number of power cells applied to 
it.  (Use 3 batteries, not 4, whatever.)  This is a simple 
mechanical connection problem; it could be fixed so a button press 
will select between muzzle velocities.


Nick 

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 05:50:32 -0500
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Misjumps

  [bit snipped about the absurdly high chance of misjump in
  a well-maintained ship and how if you misjump you're quite
  often screwed]

>Not entirely true. Human ingenuity has a lot of ways to get 
>round this. 1) The ship's auxiliaries will all have fuel 
>which can be siphoned into the jump tank.

Where is this mysterious auxillaries fuel that doesn't show up 
on the design sheets, ship specs, or deckplans?

>2) The maneuver/plant fuel will be seperately stored to J fuel and 
>can have some transferred - you don't need the power plant 
>capacity your weapons require if you're doing an emergency 
>jump.

And the vast majority of ships use thrusters and Fusion+, and have
*one* ton of fuel for the power plant. Ain't no jump gonna be made
nowhere on one ton of fuel.

>3) There are many sources of 
>water aboard a ship in emergencies. Apart from the LS 
>complement of water, there are cargoes and there is the 
>inevitable crates of beer for the PCs. Dump all that 
>straight in the purifier. Tank of fish in the captain's 
>cabin (a la Jean-Luc Picard)? In the purifier. Bowls of 
>fruit? Juice 'em and strain 'em.

And where is this LS complement of water? Yes, I know that it
has to exist in order for everyone to survive, but I assume it takes 
up an insignificant amout of space on board ship, or it would have
to be accounted for in the design process. You can say that it is
part of the tonnage for staterooms/bunks/etc., but do you really 
think a ton per person of cabin space is devoted to water? Didn't
some of this get discussed during the great Fresher vs. Showers
Debate of '96? <g> 

In addition, I think the part of the argument against the 1/36 chance 
of misjump has to do with the huge passenger liners that WILL NOT
exist under such a rule. How many of the Imperial Elite are going to
care to travel about when they know that odds are they will be forced
to pour their Dom Cleon '05 into the fuel tank, along with their
perfume, lava lamps, spit, etc? Puts a whole new meaning into 
"Make sure you go to the bathroom before we get started!" <g>
And if you do use up the LS allotment, what the heck are they
supposed to use for the week in jump getting back?

>Sooner or later, you can rustle up enough fuel for one jump 
>to safety. 

Even dumping the Captain's fish tank and milady's feminine wash
into the hoppers ain't gonna get enough for a jump-1, much less a
jump-6 out of some Rift somewhere. And if you make some rule 
about emergency jumps needing less fuel, no one would ever make
a standard jump anymore. Why? You've got a good chance of 
misjumping anyway!

>Added to all this, given the known properties of misjump, I 
>refuse to believe that Jump fuel isn't sectioned into 
>seperate Jump-1 tanks. So unless you're at maximum jump, 
>there will be more fuel available.

Once again, this doesn't apply to the 99+% of ship designs that
carry fuel for ONE jump. And the [broken] economics of the 3I
doesn't allow any reasonable cargo or passenger ship carry fuel
for more than one jump and still make a minimal profit.

>Most of the "excitement" of misjumps should come from the 
>"where the hell are we?" bit and the "how badly damaged are 
>the J drives?" bit.

I think you've hit on the crux of the matter here. IMHO this looks like
it was either a typo that slipped through (surprise <g>), or was a 
rule added to add a touch of "excitement" to travelling that 1) really
isn't needed (jumping from star to star isn't exciting enough? What
about ship board intrigue? Piracy? Hijacking? Zero-G sex?) and
2) wasn't though out at all about the subsequent effects on the 
3I's economy and trade. Who's going to finance or insure ship 
building if nearly 3% of them are going to misjump/disappear/explode
every 2 weeks?

>Having said all this I still agree that properly maintained 
>ships running purified fuel should only misjump about 1 in 
>100 or so. Then again, what's the chance of an accident and 
>injury in a car journey today? Yet we still use cars!

When's the last time you had a car wreck downtown that spun 
you into the Antarctic? <g> And I DON'T have a mishap, minor or
major, every 36th time a climb into my car.

**********************************************************
  Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
 CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1122
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Wednesday, April 2 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1123



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Hospitalers
Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...
Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)
Hospitallers (Knights of Malta)
Re: LAG and Friendly Fire
Re: Hospitallers
Re: Templars
Interstellar Empires
Jump Fuel
submarine fighters (on topic, really)
Re: Interstellar Empires
Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
Re: Templars
Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)
Re: Misjumps
Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)
Re: Hospitalers
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1122
Further further education

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 23:09:24 +1200
From: Andrew Vallance <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Hospitalers

>Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 19:57:43 -0500 (EST)
>From: GDWGAMES@aol.com
>Subject: Hospitalers

>Perhaps one of our UK contributors can correct me if I amm mistaken, but do
>not the Hospitallers (sic?) still exist in Great Britain, under the name of
>St John's Ambulance?

Yes the Hospitallers (The Knights Hospitaller of St John of Jeruselem to give
them their full title) do still exist. With the fall of the Crusader states
they moved their base to the island of Rhodes, and acted as sort of
anti-Turkish stormtroopers. The Turks finally got more than a little peved at
this and Suleiman the Magnificent decided to do something about them. After a
rather epic seige the Turks took the island (1522), but not before the
Hospitallers had thourghly impressed the Turks and the rest of Europe (a quote
from Emperor Charles V "Nothing was as well lost as Rhodes"). The Emperor
Charles V then granted them the island of Malta as base, from where they
continued their anti-Turk activities. Naturally the Turks continued to be
peved and tried to take Malta (1565), but were defeated. In 1798 Napoleon
took the Island on his way to Egypt and the Knights moved their base to the
Vatican. By this time they had transformed themselves into the modern
charitable order of today (the Turks having become somewhat less of a threat
to Chrisendom by that time). They continue to exist as a charitable order,
running numerous hospitals and ambulance services (their speciality) through
out the world. Incidentally their headquarters (the second floor of a
building in the Vatican) is listed as the worlds smallest soveriegn state.

They feature in many of the great battles against the Turks (Lepanto 1571,
the Seige of Vienna 1683 etc.) during this period.

In 1308 King Edward II of England seized the possessions of the Knights
Templar in England and granted them to the Hospitallers. If memory serves me
right they picked up a lot more when the Templars were officially disbanded
in 1312.

Now there's some adventure hooks for a tired traveller umpire in there!

  Andrew etc.
    a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz

****************************************************************************
  Be pure, Be strong, Behave
****************************************************************************

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 13:56:09 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...

>Well, I was actually thinking one would not need a "super" conductor, only
>a really good one.  Also the choice of materials is dictated by how hard
>that material is.  So if we found that the best room temperature
>superconductor was, say, kiwi jello, we still would not want to use it as
>a projectile, being as messy as it is ineffective.
>
>Pete

They're (room temp superconductors) called metaconductors and appear at TL
9 (I think).


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 23:16:51 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)

In mail you write:

> At 09:40 AM 4/1/97 -0700, Bruce Johnson wrote:
>>On another, more off topic note, last month, a bunch of Columbian drug
>>smugglers were busted trying to purchase a used Soviet submarine,
>>presumably for smuggling purposes.
>
> Okay, to steer this back on topic somewhat, why don't we have small
> submarine fighters, perhaps deployable from a attack sub or a boomer?
> These could be small manned subs or even drones; presumably even a small
> number of these would make normal tactics difficult for the opposing sub.

Well, to start with, the way drag works, a smaller vessel has problems.
Torpedoes manage by being nothing but powerplant and warhead and by
being *very* skinny (long, narrow has better drag factors).

In effect, modern wireguided torpedoes *are* remote controlled
fighters. Manned ones are out because the only *possible* rendevous and
docking procedures would let everyone for *miles* around know what was
going on.

> And given that for some reason we _don't_ have these, what (if anything)
> does that say about the viability of small space fighters?  Thoughts?

The environment is just *too* different. You can't draw many (if any)
useful analogies between space and submarines.

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

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 22:08:46 +1000 (EST)
From: Michael Barry <mbarry@pcug.org.au>
Subject: Hospitallers (Knights of Malta)

If you'd like to read something that is more solid than most of these 
phallacious conspiracy phantasies, check out "The Monks Of War" by 
Desmond Seward. Truth is stranger than fiction... anybody heard about 
the Order of St. Lazare? Apparently you had to be a *leper* to join. 
I can see the mustering out tables: 

1. +1 INT
2. +2 EDU
3. BLADE
4. GUN
5. Travellers' Aid Society
6. Leprosy

**************************************************************************
Michael Barry
mbarry@pcug.org.au               <--- checked daily

TOM: "I'm going to opium dens! Yes, opium dens, dens of vice and 
criminals' hang-outs, Mother. I've joined the Hogan gang, I'm a hired 
assassin, I carry a tommy-gun in a violin case! I run a string of 
cat-houses in the Valley! They call me Killer, Killer Wingfield, I'm 
leading a double life, a simple, honest warehouse worker by day, by night 
a dynamic tsar of the underworld, Mother."
Tennessee Williams, _The Glass Menagerie_
**************************************************************************

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 97 13:04:00 PST
From: David Elrick <David.Elrick@ps.co.uk>
Subject: Re: LAG and Friendly Fire

James Garriss <jpg@langley.mitre.org> asked (a week ago - sorry it's   
taken so long to get back to you, but I had to go up to Scotland for a   
few days):

> Why do you include the LAG in with a shotgun?

Because my gun-bunnies only use the flechette rounds for the LAG.

Pierre-louis constantin <Pierre-Louis.Constantin@DMI.USherb.CA> asked:

> David elrick's friendly fire rule:
> Wouldn't it make more sense to somehow invert the skill roll to MISS
> your friends?  Because otherwise, if you miss your target, the more
> skilled you are the more likely you are to kill your own friends. :)

The way I looked at it:

* if the PC is that skilled, they will usually hit what they aim for,
* failing that, the more skilled they are, the more likely they are to   
hit something (someone, somesophont, whatever).

I originally invented the rule to cover an incident where one lunatic was   
firing into a melee in a ship's corridor (March Harrier as it happens -   
although that's hardly relevant) and attempting to hit the person they   
were aiming at. In the crowd and the confusion, it seemed likely that the   
character would hit someone close to the aiming point.

In answer to your last point, assuming that the crowd includes the same   
numbers of friends and enemies, the firing character is no more or less   
likely to hit a friend as they are to hit an enemy.

However, I should say that I have had occasion to use this 'rule' less   
than a dozen times in the last ten years or so (my gun-bunnies prefer not   
to get too close to their enemies!).

Kind Regards

David Elrick

 --------------------------------------------------------------
I thought you said you could drive this thing?
No. I said I WOULD drive this thing.

 Realisation tragically begins to dawn in a Traveller game
 -------------------------------------------------------------  

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 00:18:21 +1200
From: Andrew Vallance <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Hospitallers

>Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 20:48:17 -0800
>From: "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh@ix.netcom.com>
>Subject: Re: Hospitalers

>>Hmmm, this may be the case, but for all intents and purposes they do not
>>exist, and they were dismembered.  The reason they were disbanded was
>>because they had past there time, and, as an orginisation they were no
>>longer useful.

>The Templar Knights were disbanded because they had way more wealth than
>was good for them.  The King of France, and others wanted to get that
>wealth.  That is why they were disbanded.  The Templars were more than a
>fighting order, they were also bankers and controlled much of the wealth in
>Europe.

Various Kings and Princes had been suppressing the Templars for a while.
King Edward II suppressed them in 1308 in England, The Emperor had suppressed
them in Germany in 1305. The writing had been on the wall for them for quite
some time before 1312. The root cause was that they were a pan-national
group which posed a serious threat to the power of the emerging nation states.
Their wealth was only perphial, sort of the cherry that prompted their
suppression at that moment, but their time had passed and they were going
to go sooner or later. No King could allow them to exist as they were beyond
their control. It was the same thing that eventually lead to the fall of
Catholic power in northern Europe.

>Interestingly most of the wealth supposedly disappeared along with
>some/most of the order when they were shut down.

Most of the Templar's wealth was in the form of land, which is rather hard
to disappear with :*). Most of their liquid capital was seized by the Pope
and King of France (and various other monarchs who knew a good thing when
they saw one); but a portion of it (still a very sizable sum) did disappear
when the order was suppressed. I'd suspect that the order did go underground
when it was suppressed, but it probably didn't last too long. The social
climate in Europe of that time was just not condusive to the long term
survival of such a secret order (too many powerful forces arranged against
it, too many social changes occuring). The 14th and 15th centuries mark the
death of feudal Europe and the birth of the nation state. It just wasn't the
right time for such a pan-national group. If the Templars had survived they
would probably have reemerged in Germany during the reformation (when the
time was right for them), but they didn't. Still why let probability get in
the way of a good conspiracy :*)


  Andrew etc.
    a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz

****************************************************************************
  Be pure, Be strong, Behave
****************************************************************************

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 07:27:34 -0500 (EST)
From: CMcknight@aol.com
Subject: Re: Templars

In a message dated 97-04-02 06:24:50 EST, you write:

> >>  Aka "No Such Agency".
>  >>  
>  >Aw shucks, and here I thought it meant Not Secret Anymore.... ;-)
>  
>  No, it _really_ means "And now we have to kill you", but the name is in
>  code. :)
>  

Damn, someone else who can translate from the ancient Babylonian!

Chuck McKnight
cmcknight@aol.com
cmcknigh@gte.net

"Did you know that Microsoft in the ancient Babylonian tongue means Satan?"
- -- coworker

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 22:41:46 +1000 (EST)
From: Michael Barry <mbarry@pcug.org.au>
Subject: Interstellar Empires

I have been wondering about how you would slice up the galaxy when 
establishing an interstellar empire. We know that Cleon (or at least 
Artemsus) divvied the First Imperium up into domains, which was probably 
as good a way as any. 
But what would have happened with the Rule of Man? How would the 
expansion have been organised to minimise blue-on-blues? And above all, 
what would have been the best way to keep the ravening b*stards' 
attention well away from the homeworld? 

I have a suggestion: 
Constellations. A noble house is given the rights to colonise any system 
within a particular constellation, as seen from the homeworld (Terra, in 
this case). The advantages of this: 
1. So long as the 'boundaries' between the constellations are fairly well 
defined, there is no argument as to who owns what. In theory, at least. 
Everything becomes a lot more fuzzy the further out you get...which is 
great for the Emperor, because the Emperor wants all the fighting to 
happen out on the frontiers rather than around the homeworld. 
2. There is a very strong incentive for each noble house to expand 
*outwards*, because the 'wedge' defined by a particular constellation 
becomes wider the further away you get from the homeworld. 
3. Some constellations will be much more valuable than others. Centaurus, 
having the nearby Centauri stars, will obviously be a plum pick of the 
constellations. Other constellations: Ursa Major, Crucis, Sagittarius, 
Orion and so on, are more or less valuable depending on how close the 
stars are to home and how much of the sky they cover. Large 
constellations may be shared or divided between smaller houses. 
4. This system gives some really nice names for nobles and their houses. The 
Barony of Crucis (Southern Cross), the Duke Sagittarius, Marquis of 
Taurus etc.

Of course, if you *weren't* a noble house, you could still find yourself 
somewhere to settle - a long way out. Or else you could lease the right 
to settle a system that the nobles didn't find particularly attractive. 
 
I suggest that this might have been the system used during the Rule of 
Man, which helps explain why the Solomani diaspora spread out so far in 
*every* direction, including towards the Rim. 

Comments? 

PS am I the only TMLer with any interest in the Rule of Man (ROM)? I 
realise this sort of places me a long way from any support in the Milieu 
Zero vs. Classic Traveller vs. New Era bunfight...   ;]

**************************************************************************
Michael Barry
mbarry@pcug.org.au               <--- checked daily

**************************************************************************

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 23:04:41 +1000 (EST)
From: Michael Barry <mbarry@pcug.org.au>
Subject: Jump Fuel

I think people have overlooked the special reservoir of emergency fuel 
that most merchant ships carry...
They're called *passengers*...

**************************************************************************
Michael Barry
mbarry@pcug.org.au               <--- checked daily
**************************************************************************

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 08:54:29 -0500
From: Mark Urbin <eclipse@ultranet.com>
Subject: submarine fighters (on topic, really)

mike wrote:
>Okay, to steer this back on topic somewhat, why don't we have small
>submarine fighters, perhaps deployable from a attack sub or a boomer?
>These could be small manned subs or even drones; presumably even a small
>number of these would make normal tactics difficult for the opposing sub.

  We do have these.  They are called torpedoes....
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
eclipse@ultranet.com -- These opinions are mine, no one else wants `em.
http://www.ultranet.com/~eclipse/  -- Politics should be limited in scope 
to war, protection of property, and the occasional precautionary 
beheading of a member of the ruling class."  -- P.J. O'Rourke 
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 16:29:42 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
Subject: Re: Interstellar Empires

On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Michael Barry wrote:

> I have been wondering about how you would slice up the galaxy when 
> establishing an interstellar empire. We know that Cleon (or at least 
> Artemsus) divvied the First Imperium up into domains, which was probably 
> as good a way as any. 
> But what would have happened with the Rule of Man? How would the 
> expansion have been organised to minimise blue-on-blues? And above all, 
> what would have been the best way to keep the ravening b*stards' 
> attention well away from the homeworld? 
> 
> I have a suggestion: 
> Constellations. A noble house is given the rights to colonise any system 
> within a particular constellation, as seen from the homeworld (Terra, in 
> this case). The advantages of this: 

The problem with dividing space by constellations is the difference in
distance between stars in a particular constillation. Stars in one
constellation can be over 500 parsecs apart, their only connection is
their closeness as seen in direction from Earth. There is seldom a 
constellation where the stars actually are close enough to make up 
a domain.

> 
> **************************************************************************
> Michael Barry
> mbarry@pcug.org.au               <--- checked daily
> 
> **************************************************************************

Tommy Grav
Institute of Astrophysics
University in Oslo
Norway

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 07:41:08 -0700
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors

Anders Backman wrote:
> 
> >there is a distinct difference between the ship's
> >maneuver drives (responsible for thrust in the forward direction)
> >and the ship's steering jets. The latter handle any close maneuvering
> >like docking. The number and size of the jets comes from the ship's
> >agility rating and reflect the ship's ability to "jiggle" around
> >to avoid incoming shots.
> 
> The attitude jets does NOT make the ship jiggle around and thus making it
> harder to hit. It changes the ships facing and thus its maneuver drives
> acceleration vector making it harder to hit. Also note that on larger ships
> you'd need quite a lot of manuever acc variation to affect hit probability
> at all (see my earlier post ["Spacecombat assumptions"] with formulaes for
> this).
> 

I agree with your last two sentences. Attitude jets do change the ship's
facing. However, they can be used in combat situations to jiggle the
ship, making boarding more difficult. Sure, on larger ships you need
more jets. That's why larger ships have lower agilities, in general.

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 10:24:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Templars

   Hi.

> From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)

> It also means that on ships with big observation windows, you *will*
> get chilled on the side facing them. (Which is why you take your date
> up to the observation deck. She gets "chilled" and you are there to
> warm her up. :-)

   Wow, now THIS is the most useful Traveller post I've seen in a long
   time!  Thanks for the excellent bit of background color. 8^)

   -Rob

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 10:28:14 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)

In a message dated 4/2/97 2:59:32 AM, Mike Sellers wrote:

<<Okay, to steer this back on topic somewhat, why don't we have small
submarine fighters, perhaps deployable from a attack sub or a boomer?
These could be small manned subs or even drones; presumably even a small
number of these would make normal tactics difficult for the opposing sub.
>>

Probably because of the raw number of people needed currently to man systems
such as Sonar, work out firing solutions, perform maintenance, etc. What
would the roll of a small sumbarine fighter?

If it was supposed to be ASW then we have helicopters for that (and small
planes). Small fighter-subs would not be able to even approach the efficiency
of the helicopter in this role.

If the roll of the small sub-fighter is to attack surface convoys then again
it would seem to be a failure, in order to stick sufficient torpedo and
sensor systems, you would have yourself an attack sub (which may not be as
big as you are thinking, they are definately considerably smaller than
boomers).

One needs to remeber that no war can be won at sea, nor in the air, and by
extension none could be won in space. Wars are over land, and the basic unit
for land combat is the infantryman. Everything else is simply support. This
is unlikely to ever change.

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 17:09:12 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Misjumps

Paul D. Owensby writes:
>Once again, this doesn't apply to the 99+% of ship designs that
>carry fuel for ONE jump. And the [broken] economics of the 3I
>doesn't allow any reasonable cargo or passenger ship carry fuel
>for more than one jump and still make a minimal profit.

All you say is very true, but the real kicker is that _even_ if you assume
that a ship carries enough fuel to make a second jump (or even that a 
misjump will always place you in a system with access to fuel) such a
misjump will place the ship somewhere far away from where they are
supposed to be with the inevetable loss of, on the average, 1/3rd of a
year's revenue. If you think ordinary starship economics are tough, just
imagine what a such a loss roughly once per year (a regular freighter or 
liner ought to be able to do 35 jumps per year) will do to your bottom
line.
 
>>Most of the "excitement" of misjumps should come from the 
>>"where the hell are we?" bit and the "how badly damaged are 
>>the J drives?" bit.
> 
>I think you've hit on the crux of the matter here. IMHO this looks like
>it was either a typo that slipped through (surprise <g>), 

That's what I thought, but IIRC someone asked Imperium Games and they
said that it was not a typo. I still find that hard to believe, but that's
what I've been told. (Joe, could you find out for sure?).


      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: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 10:26:28 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors

In a message dated 4/2/97 3:29:27 AM, Erin Fritz wrote:

<<I disagree. The computer of the pirate ship can't match random moves.
It can't anticipate the moves of the other ship.
>>

Number one: it doesn't have to anticipate, it simply has to be able to react
to the moves. If it can react fast enough (and a tech level 15 computer
should be able to react fast enough) then the adjustments would come
milliseconds after the evasion attempts, effectively making them
instantaneous. Since you can't apply instant changes to the vector of a 100s
of ton starship travelling with significant velocity along any set course
anyway, all "jiggleing" could only consist of small changes to the forward
velocity and course. Even though most space combats would occur at relatively
slow speeds (being near a planet), the forward momentum of the ship would be
far greater then any "jiggleling" that could be done with attitude jets.
Brilliant Lances actually illustrated how difficult it is to dogfight at high
vectors. Thus any docking maneouvers would still be mostly a matter of
matching vectors. The biggest problem that I see has more to do with the TNE
statement that ships are constantly spinnning about their axis, this makes
the only points readily available for docking/bording at either end of that
axis, and one end is certainly not going to be very good to board if the
maneuver drives are still putting out thrust. Thus the only point for bording
is from bow to bow. An actual dock or grapple would be difficult to
impossible on a spinning ship, unless you had some sort of mechanical grasper
that could grab the nose of the other ship (and each end would have to be
capable of spinning). Perhaps this "arm" has a corridor inside it to
facilitate the movement of troops.

Number two: even if the computer had to anticipate, the existance of programs
like Predict-1 through Predict-4 in Classic Traveller, as well as the
Anti-Hijack program show that anticipation is not beyond the high-tech
computers of Traveller.

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 10:26:35 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

In a message dated 4/2/97 3:35:59 AM, Joel Connors wrote:

<<To throw some variables into the mix.

A star fighter, or small vehicle is immensely more maneuverable that a
Starship. >>

This is not necessarily true, believe it or not. Spaceship maneuverability is
a matter of applying Gs of thrust in different directions to affect and
change vector, the greater the Gs that can be applied, the greater the
maneuverability. There is no reason a large ship cannot have large enough
drives to apply 6G, 8G, 10G or even more. This is not normally the case,
since such drives take up so much room (and surface area), and a large ship
normally needs this room for jump drives and such. The small fighter, being
purpose-built, would normally have greater maneuverability then a larger
ship, simply because there isn't much point in giving a carrier 12Gs worth of
thrust.

Joel continues:

<<A small craft attempting to hit a nearby object with grapples, does not
need
it to hold still to hit it.>>

No, but if you hit a spinning ship with a grapple you're in for a wild ride,
especially if you're much smaller.

<<While dangerous, jumping between vehicles is possible (Biplane to Biplane,
Truck to Truck, Boat to Boat).>>

Again, the spinning could cause probelms, making the bow the only reasonable
jump point.

<<With these variables in mind how would this modify the arguments.

Example- A small 5 ton grav driven spacecraft intercepts and matches
relative velocity with a 200 ton free trader. Using multiple grapples the
small craft latches onto the larger ship and reals itself in.>>

Well, in TNE both craft would be spinning, so as soon as the multiple
grapples are latched on, the small craft would be wipped into an orbit around
it. Depending on how rapidly the free trader is spinning, the grapple lines
might be snapped instantly (what material are they made of? what's their
tensile strength?). If the cables are strong enough, then the small craft
should be able to reel itself in. Of course, there are G forces to consider
here. It is unlikely that either craft would be spinning any faster then its
internal grav compensators could handle, since doing so would hinder the
crew.

<<How capable our Starship sensor at detecting a very small craft when it is
less than a half klick away, a 100 yards, a 100 feet?>>

Try looking out a window?

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 07:29:25 -0800
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)

At 08:19 AM 4/2/97 +0100, Anders Backman wrote:
>>Also I think the Seal's have some sort of Mini-sub that is deployed from
>>our sub's.  Same with the old Soviet special forces (whose name escapes
>>me).  Of course this could make my above stated opinions invalid.  What can
>>I say, I was a "blackshoe", not a "bubblehead", and always thought the
>>surface Navy was a better guide for Space based warfare.
>
>In that I think you're wrong. Space warfare will resemble sub warfare more
>than surface action. Run silent and if detected you're dead. The problem is
>that Traveller space coombat and mythology is based on large fleets
>clashing a la surface ships of WWII.

Okay, this goes back to my original question: _assuming_ that Anders is
correct and that space combat will resemble sub combat more than surface
combat (not unreasonable, IMO), then that would seem to argue against small
manned fighters, and in favor of fairly large, slow, not-too-manueverable
vehicles (compared to a modern airplane, for example).  It might also argue
against boarding actions.  And no, I don't think torpedos are the
equivalent of manned fighters.

To look at this the other way, which is where I started, are there good
reasons why we don't have small manned submarine fighters?  Someone
mentioned that it'd take most or all of the missile space in a boomer.  I'm
not sure I agree with that, but even so, is there some reason beyond
military tradition why we don't have the submarine equivalent of an
aircraft carrier?  



- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 10:25:58 -0500
From: "Dorn, Michael" <Michael_Dorn@dscc.dla.mil>
Subject: Re: Hospitalers

Has anyone else noticed how relentless Solomani is in refuting the
possibility of the existence of Templars?
Perhaps he is one!
>

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 08:46:12 -0700
From: Eric Holmes <holmes_eric_t@lanl.gov>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1122

  In response to "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Misjumps

The players in our CT campaign used a fuel bladder
concept.  Space was used to build a bladder, which
could be collapsed and then "replaced" with living
space.  The most they designed in was a Jump 2
capacity of reserve.  The space became a Drop
Tube ready room on a 1000dT Cruiser.  The capability
was Jump 3 plus Jump 2.  So it took two weeks to
get where they wanted....

Eric

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 16:57:01 +0100
From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Further further education

Following the education debate last month, here are some suggestions 
for pre-career options to round out those in the T4 rules.

Nick

(who only just made the Edu qualification...)

- ----

This work (C) 1997 by N.S. Munn

"Ivy League" college education

In any educational system in which homogeneity is not
rigidly enforced, some institutions will be judged as better
than others.  Prestige will accrue to these colleges, as will
money as their fame spreads: industries will wish to be associated
with a successful university, and students will pay extra in order
to study there.  This allows the college to select between a large
number of potential applicants, admit the brightest of those able to
pay the fees, and to a limited extent subsidise highly able 
scholarship
candidates from poorer backgrounds.  Its quality increases still
further, and its competition is on average poorer.

The first-rate, "Ivy League" institutions naturally attract the
highest echelons of society, leavened with highly able young people
from all walks of life.  They therefore contribute to the
stratification of Imperial society on the basis of nobility, ability,
and liquidity -- social class, intellectual and educational level,
and financial resources, in other words.  The Ivy League college
concentrates a huge fraction of the future leaders of the Imperium
under one roof, which adds enormously to the Imperium's cohesion
and smooth running.  It also makes the university as much a social
organisation as an educational one.


Ivy League College (4 years)


Pre-requisite: Edu 8+
Admission:     2-; DM+2 if Int A+, DM+1 if Edu A+, DM+1 if Soc 9+
Failed admiss.:     No age penalty
Perseverance:  7-; DM+1 if Soc 9+, DM+2 if Int 9+
Flunked out:   Spent 1D/2 years, gaining 1 skill per year
Skills:        1 per year from either social or academic skills

Academic:

1 Jack-o-T
2 Academic
3 Science
4 Science
5 Science
6 Academic

Social:

1 Performance or Technical
2 Charisma
3 Bureaucracy
4 Athletics
5 Carousing
6 Fencing

OTC/NOTC: As per normal college education
Benefits:                    If Soc < A, +1 Soc
          Automatic Science-1
Graduation:    Academic degree of BS
Honours:            9-; an honours graduate may apply for medical
          school, law school or (if NOTC) flight school.


Comments: The model institutions for this process are the University
of Cambridge, MIT, Heidelberg and other such. (I know less about Yale
and Harvard than I might.)  Specifically, the idea of a university
awarding only one degree is based on Cambridge's BA, although here
the focus is explicitly on science (whether 'hard' or 'soft').  The
rationale for this is the technocratic nature of the Imperium, plus
the idea that an Ivy League college is about general education and
social contact rather than learning specific skills.  The social
contact element is reflected in the Soc bonus for "low" Soc 
characters
which simulates mixing with individuals of higher social status on
a fairly level footing.  (Having said this, not fitting in makes it
more likely a character will drop out of college, hence the bonus for
high Soc on the roll for perseverance.)  OTC/NOTC might be easier for
Ivy League students, but I have not made it so.  The honours roll is
much easier than usual to simulate the much higher level of academic
achievement in such colleges. (Cambridge awards an MA on the basis of
having survived the BA, and living another 3 1/3 years afterwards, 
for example.)  Fencing skill as a social achievement is pure Heidelberg,
but fits beautifully with the Third Imperium.

Cui bono?  Ivy League colleges allow characters with Soc 9 to enter
the ranks of the nobility (+1 Soc from college = A, the minimum to
enter the Noble career), which represents the meritocratic nature of
Imperial nobility.  They also provide a disproportionate number of
doctors, lawyers and Scholars.  However, they do not teach 
performance skills at all; nor do they provide a good technical education.
These skills are acquired either indirectly, as in learning electronics
while a physics student or understanding pyschology through art,
or as hobbies, such as amateur dramatics or extra-curricular computer
work.



Law School

The art and practice of law is somewhat different from normal
graduate work.  As a result, dedicated law schools are common,
dealing with both planetary and Imperial law.  Lawyers can be
found in most Imperial services, as well as merchant organisations.

Law School (2 years)

Prerequisite:  College or Ivy League graduate, or Merchant Academy
          honours graduate
Admission:     6-; DM+1 if INt 9+, DM+1 if Edu A+
Failed admiss.:     No age penalty
Perseverance:  7-; DM+1 if End 8+, DM+2 if Int 8+
Flunked out:   Spent 1 year; roll one skill

Law skills:    (roll 1 per year)

1 Research
2 Administration
3 Law
4 Law
5 Criminology
6 Charisma

Graduation:    On first graduation, receive LLM (Master of Laws)
          On second graduation, licensed to practice law

Honours:  +1 Edu


Law School graduates must join the Merchant service if Merchant
Academy graduates, and if OTC/NOTC must join the Army or Navy
respectively.  Other graduates may join the Scholar, Agent or Scout
careers. (Army, Navy and Merchant requirements are satisfied by
their academies.)
Dr. Nick Munn, University of Sheffield, Dept. of Information Studies
 (formerly nsm14@cus.cam.ac.uk, now N.S.Munn@shef.ac.uk)

Scientist * Freelance theologian * Traveller player and BITS member

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1123
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Wednesday, April 2 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1124



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Ancients?
Trav 3D stuff
Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)
Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
RE: Hivers
templars etc
Re: Misjumps
Re: Much Ado About Starship Design
Raytrace program (off topic)
Re: Much Ado About Starship Design
Re: Interstellar Empires
Space fighters
Submarine Fighters
Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...
Re: Loren's AOL account & Misjump!
Re: Loren's AOL account & Misjump!
Re: Blackshoes Unite
Re: Much Ado About Starship Design
Silly Things to do on Ranges (probably verry olld bye now)

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 11:04:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Ancients?

> From: Jeff Harvey <jharvey@nlci.com>

> Okay, I'm a rookie referee, so take it easy on me.
> I was wondering where I could (in Traveller literature) find information
> about the Ancients.  One of my PC's thought that it might be interesting
> to begin a search for an Ancient's site.  

   Ooh, oo-oo-ooh!  What you want to to do is send them on the
   "Twilight's Peak" series of adventures (Shadows --- Research Station
   Gamma --- Twilight's Peak),  one of the best adventure series ever
   written.  Each adventure can also be played as stand-alone, if you
   can't get all three, but the climax is the third, "Twilight's Peak".

   "Secret of the Ancients" is the adventure with the most information. 
   It lays bare all of the mysteries and resolves the enigmas.  It also
   essentially puts an end to using the Ancients as an /enigmatic/ plot
   device; they become just another powerful alien race, ala the Borg,
   the Organians, or the Q continuum.

>    I was thinking that to find an Ancient's sight, would be a life-long
> goal.  Just getting through all of the archeological literature, to find
> some starting clues, would take years.  I could really use some
> information on this.  Thanks in advance.

   How right you are!

   -Rob

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 18:07:38 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Trav 3D stuff

A while back somebody asked for Traveller 3D material for his RayDream
Designer software. I (finally) sent my type S Scout texture maps but the
address was wrong. Please e-mail a new working address.
BTW Anybody else who wants a PhotoShop file of type S scout texturemaps
with transperancy, bump et c please drop me a line and I'll attach it in my
reply. Modeling the actual ship should be easy, basically a squashed
pyramid.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 11:41:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)

   Hi.

   The Japanese used small, 1-man submarines in WWII.  They were not
   generally successful.  Perhaps a military historian can tell us why.
   To get the conversation moving, let me contribute a few thoughts by
   someone who has no idea what he's talking about (me):

   1) Communication: The sub's greatest asset is its stealth.  When subs
   begin communicating with one another enough to organize into wings
   and groups (necessary for effective fighter combat) they give away
   their position.

   2) Visibility: Even when fighters are maintaining radio silence, they
   keep in formation by observing where their wingmen are, but
   underwater, you really can't see anything.  Again, this prevents
   effective use of group tactics by fighter subs.

   3) Logistics:  Another sub asset is the ability of the the sub to hang
   around near enemy strongholds until it sees its chance to do damage.
   Small craft simply do not have the supplies necessary for staying far
   from home for a long time.  As for rendez-vous with mother ships or
   resupply vessels, see (1) and (2) above.

   It seems I once heard something about Russian tactics for using subs
   in squadrons.  This means they have overcome obstacles (1) and (2)
   somehow.  How do they do it?  Does it work well?

   -Rob

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 11:40:13 -0500 (EST)
From: "John P. Raynor" <john.raynor@yale.edu>
Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors

On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Erwin Fritz wrote:
> I agree with your last two sentences. Attitude jets do change the ship's
> facing. However, they can be used in combat situations to jiggle the
> ship, making boarding more difficult. Sure, on larger ships you need
> more jets. That's why larger ships have lower agilities, in general.

I think you *could* use attitude jets to "jiggle" your ship enough to make
boarding difficult.  Suppose a vessel has cluster of attitude jets at the
bow, and another cluster at the stern.  To turn the bow to starboard, you
could either fire the port-side forward jets, or the starboard-side aft
jets.  To tip the bow "down," you could fire the dorsal forward jets, or
the ventral aft jets.

If, however, you wanted your ship to "side-slip" to starboard, you could
fire BOTH the port-side forward jets, AND the port-side aft jets.

Here's an interesting possibility: are attitude jets mounted rigidly, in
clusters, on the hull (like the ones on the cylindrical "service module" 
of the "Apollo" spacecraft) or are they flexibly-mounted?  If attitude
jets can be "aimed," couldn't they also be used a *weapons*, to drive off
would-be boarders?  Presumably, the safety-interlocks that ordinarily
prevent the jets' exhaust from scorching the ship's hull would have to be
turned off, but that wouldn't be hard.  Boarders would have to be very
careful to "land" on patches of hull far from the jets...
                                                             - J. Raynor

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 10:06:21 -0700 (MST)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors

 
> I agree with your last two sentences. Attitude jets do change the ship's
> facing. However, they can be used in combat situations to jiggle the
> ship, making boarding more difficult. Sure, on larger ships you need
> more jets. That's why larger ships have lower agilities, in general.
 
Actually, that's not why larger ships would have lower agilities.
There are 2 reasons why this would be true:

1.  G-compensation.  Changing facing rapidly involves an angular
acceleration.  The radial component, a, is: a = v^2/r.  a can
rapidly far exceed the g-compensation rating of the ship with just
little thrusters at the tips of the ship to start it spinning.

2.  Crew.  If you have a single crew member at the center of
rotation, the radial "a" term above makes little difference (since 
v = 2*Pi*r/period and period is the same regardless of the r since
the two points on the ship are attached to each other).  As a result
larger ships with more crew need to have crew members at various
places around the ship which limits them to g-comp radial
accelerations.

- -Merrick

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 08:57:36 -0800
From: Jeff Cornish <jcornish@appiantech.com>
Subject: RE: Hivers

On Tuesday, April 01, 1997 5:35 PM, shadow@krypton.rain.com wrote:
> In mail you write:
> 
> > On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 GDWGAMES@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Hmm why? why not insect?
> 
> Because hive like *insects* have been done to death in SF.

So what?  I can brainstorm for a couple of days to come up with a
_really_
alien race, or use something that is just as icky and alien, but very
short on
time to create:
("You see something that looks like a giant spider.. ah, it must be the
ambassador.")

> 
> > Ive noticed that there are no insect liek lifeform nor tree like lifeform.
> > Is there a reason for this?
> 
> Contrary to all the bad SF movies (and not a few bad books), the laws
> of physics don't allow giant insects. And once you get rid of the
> exoskeleton, and add lungs and a "real" circulatory system, the result
> doesn't look anything like an insect.

Well, a few million years ago there were dragonflys with wingspans in
excess 
of a meter -- as I understand, there is evidence that the Earth's
atmosphere
contained more Oxygen.  Also, what if this insectoid race _did_  have a
reasonable circulatory system?  Would you know it if you met one on the 
street (and didn't shoot it -- the bleeding would give it away, I
suppose).  As
for an okay stab at this, look at Star Frontiers' Vrusk -- insectoid,
has both an 
internal and exoskeleton; has a circulatory system.

> 
> Intelligent "trees" has both been overdone, and pretty well shown to be
> really unlikely. Non-mobile lifeforms don't have any *need* for
> intelligence. And intelligence requires a lot of energy, something that
> photosynthetic lifeforms can't easily spare.

Again, the thing about aliens is that they are alien.  They might look
like 
trees and use some amount of photosynthesis, but have tools and such.
They don't even have to be mobile... what if the entire forest you've
just crashed
your starship into is a sophont being (uses tools, fire, agriculture,
psionics, 
stonework, metals, genetics, etc.  Just not terribly interested in
spaceflight until the planet
gets more crowded.  Take that idea, and some of Niven's Stage Trees....)

Why does all life have to be based on our chemistry; to some methane 
breather race out there we should all be nothing more than oxidized 
compounds -- 'gentlepods, life using oxygen is unlikely because of the 
temperatures that it would have to endure'

If you want aliens, take some concept -- pincers, echolocation, slime,
larvae,
etc. and use that as a launching point.  How about an amphibious race
that 
looks a bit like 2 meter long sea slugs (with the frilly gill on the
back).  Add 
the attitudes that  you want them to have ("DIE LAND DWELLER SCUM!" or 
"wE wOULD lIKE tO sELL yOU sOME sECONDHAND kEYBOARDS") and 
you have your alien.

So they look like a tree or a spider or a dinosaur.  Big deal.  It's fun
to run 
into alien races you've read about in SF books, it's also fun to deal
with 
completely new races.  You have your own imagination, and the books
aren't 
printed on vellum with rare inks.  Take Traveller and mutate it.  

- --Don't like Asimov?  Change the Imperium, give it a number of powerful
neighbors,
make Cleon more of a scamp

- --Like Asimov a lot?  Add in Hari Seldon (I'm sure Issac wouldn't mind
you doing
that this one time)

- --Like Dean Foster a lot?  Add flying lizard/dragons and other beasties.

- --Buy other stuff <<making protection from fire rune>> get a bunch of
GURPS, 
TSR Star Frontiers/Buck Rodgers, and Space Master books and STEAL STEAL
STEAL.
(personally my favorite RPG is Paul Kidd's Albedo Anthropomorphics--it
was to create
background for that that I originally bought my first Traveller books.
Still is.)

Worried about stats and specifics?  My problem is I concentrate on those
too much
(stats for neighboring planets that the PCs won't see, etc) I'd recommed
the two sentence method: get the centeral idea down in two sentences,
the stats and other details 
will come out of that.



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

Jeff Cornish

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 18:14:54 +0100 (BST)
From: Mark James Wilkin <aa4mwi@zen.sunderland.ac.uk>
Subject: templars etc

I'm a bit fuzzy on this but I'm sure I saw a tv program on an order 
somthing like the hospitalers. It still exists today and is the only 
non-nation apart from the UN allowed to issue its own passports. I seem 
to remember they were working as some kind of diplomatic mediation 
service between nations or groups.
mark wilkin

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 12:33:10 -0500
From: Jeff Harvey <jharvey@nlci.com>
Subject: Re: Misjumps

> 
> When's the last time you had a car wreck downtown that spun
> you into the Antarctic? <g> And I DON'T have a mishap, minor or
> major, every 36th time a climb into my car.

     The occurrence of an automobile accident, for each individual driver,
is one accident every seven years.  I think that dying in an auto
accident would be the equivalent to a Major mis-jump.  One mis-jump per
36 jumps does seem ridiculously extreme.  I've always believed that not
only should an Astrogation check be made, but that an Engineering check
be made as well, equal to the Astrogation difficulty.  Just a couple
thoughts.

                                   Jeff

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 10:56:41 -0800
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: Re: Much Ado About Starship Design

Chris Cox wrote:
> 
> Marc Miller wrote:
> 
> > SPACE COMBAT RANGES
> > Range Name    Value
> >       6       Distant / Boarding      5 km
> >       7       VDistant        50 km
> >       8       Regional        500 km
> >       9       Continental     5,000 km
> >       10      Planetary       50,000 km
> >       11      Far Orbit       500,000 km
> >       12      Interplanetary  1 AU
> >       13      Outsystem       10 AU
> >       14      Oort    100 AU
> >       Subtract 6 from range number to determine the number of range bands
> between
> > two ships.
> 
> Why don't you just use the number from Central supply catalog as the basis
> for space combat ranges:
> 
> subregional(10km)
> regional(30km)
> subcontinent(300km)
> continent(3,000km)
> orbital(30,000km)
> far orbit(300,000km)
> 
> Or is there some really good reason to justify redefining published matterial
> and further muddling Traveller?

Besides Cris' valid point, I have another equally important reason
(imho).

Distances based on factors of three on the high end make it easy to
calculate "time lag" since 1 light-second = approx. 300,000 km

Another point: Big jump from your range 11 to 12 (factor of 300). Rest
of the range table uses a factor of 10. There should be another range
band or two (or three) between "Far Orbit" and "Interplanetary".

Distances beyond 1 light-sec should use propogation of light as a basis.
What's important at these great distances is *speed of communication*.
It so happens that 1 AU approximates 500 light-seconds. 

So... Here's my suggestion for ranges:

 6 subregional          10 km     
 7 regional             30 km
 8 subcontinent        300 km      
 9 continent         3,000 km     
10 orbital          30,000 km   0.1 light-sec
11 far orbit       300,000 km     1 light-sec
12 satellite           3e6 km    10 light-sec
13 far satellite?      9e6 km    30 light-sec
14 interplanetary        1 AU   500 light-sec 
15 outsystem          10.8 AU   1.5 light-hour
16 deeepspace          108 AU    15 light-hour

Having satellite and far satellite range bands allows for more
granularity at typical space combat distances.

Keeping ranges for far orbit/satellite in divisions of light-seconds
would be an advantage for an advanced space combat system ala Mayday or
Brilliant Lances/Battle Rider, where 1 hex = 1 light-second.

It would be a Good Thing to allow for compatability and convertability
between the simple "range band" system and a more advanced "hex based"
system.

- - Glenn Hoppe

PS. I think space combat at interplanetary distance or beyond is pretty
much impossible.

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 17:47:02 GMT
From: starwolf@sn.no (StarWolf)
Subject: Raytrace program (off topic)

This may be off topic, but please bear with me. I look for a easy to
use shareware raytrace program for win95, in the purpose to draw
Traveller ships.

Please send me an email with your suggestions, and why I ought to
select that particular program.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Myhre                 |"Never worry about theory as long as the=20
http://home.sn.no/~starwolf | machinery does what it's supposed to do."
Universal Internet          |
            Number: 127772  |                  -- R. A. Heinlein

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 11:35:02 -0800
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: Re: Much Ado About Starship Design

> STANDARD MISSIONS
>         The mission of the ship being designed is the primary purpose for which it
> is constructed. Typical missions and their requirements are:
>         Passenger. Carries passengers.
>         Trade. Carries speculative cargoes.
>         Transport. Carries freight for profit.
>         Survey. Surveys unknown systems.
>         Scout. Explores unknown systems.
>         Patrol. Conducts military missions.
>         Tramp. Outfitted for a variety of trade missions.
>         Yacht. Outfitted for luxury voyages.

Others:

Tender. Refuels or repairs other craft.
Escort. Defends other craft.

I think that
Liner. Carries passengers.
is the more common designation for that particular mission in Traveller.

I am reminded of CT two-letter designators for spacecraft. I don't have
the list right now, but I recall other nifty missions. Maybe the
designators could be brought back? Might make for easily recognized ship
lists and missions:

Type L 400 ton Tukera class
Type T 200 ton Garu
Type S 100 ton Magellan
Type P 300 ton Templar
Type Y 200 ton Opulent

or even

L-400 Tukera
T-200 Garu
S-100 Magellan
P-300 Templar
Y-200 Opulent

I can see a player scrolling through a _Jane's All the Galaxy's
Spacecraft_ summary listing: "That T-200 Garu class looks like a size we
can afford to operate, pull up the spec's on it."

Maybe the jump number could follow the designator, since it's usually an
important criterion for narrowing the search.

"Don't bother checking the T1-200 Garu, we need Jump-2... Look at the
T2-200 Marco Polo..."

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 11:29:23 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Interstellar Empires

On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Tommy Grav wrote:
> 
> The problem with dividing space by constellations is the difference in
> distance between stars in a particular constillation. Stars in one
> constellation can be over 500 parsecs apart, their only connection is
> their closeness as seen in direction from Earth. There is seldom a 
> constellation where the stars actually are close enough to make up 
> a domain.
> 

But this is why they expand out in wedges...you don't necessarily colonize
all or _any_ of the stars that make the constellation, as seen from terra,
but that is the cone of space you get to claim as yours... 

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:29:36 +-300
From: Jyrki Paajanen <jyrki.paajanen@jyrki.pp.fi>
Subject: Space fighters

This fighter/submarine discussion has made me wonder why every fighter 
design in Traveller is either AF or SL. Unstreamlined hull materials take 
less volume, is lighter and cost less. And because there are used from 
other ships or space stations to fight starships there are no reason for 
them to enter atmospheres, COACC has own special ships for that. Fighters 
do not hide in to gas giants to ambush other ships re-fueling there, it is 
work for SDBs. Because fighters enemies are usually bigger ships, there 
need every edge they can get. And extra weight and lost volume don't help.
Are there any reasons I haven't thought?

Jyrki Paajanen

begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT
M>)\^(A,2`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$-@ 0`
M`@````(``@`!!) &`!0!```!````# ````,``# #````"P`/#@`````"`?\/
M`0```$,`````````@2L?I+ZC$!F=;@#=`0]4`@````!T<F%V96QL97) 35!'
M3BY#3TT`4TU44 !T<F%V96QL97) 35!'3BY#3TT``!X``C !````!0```%--
M5% `````'@`#, $````3````=')A=F5L;&5R0$U01TXN0T]-```#`!4,`0``
M``,`_@\&````'@`!, $````5````)W1R879E;&QE<D!-4$=.+D-/32<`````
M`@$+, $````8````4TU44#I44D%614Q,15) 35!'3BY#3TT``P``.0`````+
M`$ Z`0````(!]@\!````! ````````-/+@$(@ <`& ```$E032Y-:6-R;W-O
M9G0@36%I;"Y.;W1E`#$(`02 `0`/````4W!A8V4@9FEG:'1E<G,`: 4!!8 #
M``X```#-!P0``@`5`!T`) `#`#,!`2" `P`.````S0<$``(`%0`,`!D``P`7
M`0$)@ $`(0```#!%0C,Y-# Q,3)!040P,3%"-D5"-#0T-34S-30P,# P`-0&
M`0.0!@#T`P``$@````L`(P```````P`F```````+`"D```````,`-@``````
M0 `Y`(#W)=&3/[P!'@!P``$````/````4W!A8V4@9FEG:'1E<G,```(!<0`!
M````%@````&\/Y/1)0&4LQ^J$A'0MNM$15-4`````!X`'@P!````! ```$9!
M6 `>`!\,`0```!(````K,S4X("@P-2D@-#<S-#0V,P````,`!A# PQ/N`P`'
M$ P"```>``@0`0```&4```!42$E31DE'2%1%4B]354)-05))3D5$25-#55-3
M24].2$%334%$14U%5T].1$525TA9159%4EE&24=(5$521$5324=.24Y44D%6
M14Q,15))4T5)5$A%4D%&3U)33%5.4U1214%-``````(!"1 !````B0(``(4"
M``"G`P``3%I&=0>A9('_``H!#P(5`J@%ZP*#`% "\@D"`&-H"L!S970R-P8`
M!L,"@S(#Q0(`<')"<1'B<W1E;0*#,W<"Y <3`H!]"H (SPG9._$6#S(U-0* 
M"H$-L0M@P&YG,3 S-0K[%%$U"_)C`$ @"H4*BVQIC#,V#? 9VR!4: 0`("!F
M:6=H$]!R+QAS=6(`P 40;F4@4F0$`&-U!!!I`B @OQ& !" `P VP'\ >P'<"
M((,$@2! :'D@978$D/\@X!W%'M 'D!W0`Z +@!U@9')A(1!L;""1'9%EB&ET
M:""1048@!;&@4TPN(%4`@'06$*QA;1PP'K!D'X!U(M#?'\$>`0<Q!" !D&L>
MP"+@U001=@;P=0> +",2'#!_(80`<"4@!: 3P"9S)$!!]2@18@6081\@'L C
M<A[ ?PK 'L I<24@`U(CX"-S<ZT=@' $( 6Q<PJP8Q[ [Q/ ): ?4281;QVT
M+#(1H-LK8RFX;BS@)*%S'V$"$+\%P"-Q*M LT0GP)\-T!& +*^ IPG,G,$-/
M04/R0Q^#;W<#H"O@!9 ',6\K12]$): D0$8=U 0@9'\LX"Z@!4 =@!_Q(E$L
MT6>]'Z%G!S ","RS),!B'R!F:"KK%A M9@I0).%GGRFD)S$%0!V1(%!R:R\S
MZ%-$0BC!0BE%'<4C,5T>L&T(D 0@*A1U!T!L]2#@8AW09RLF)S IM!ZP_R41
M(00)@#Q *:(@X"E0`Z"G/$ S82CR97@DD&$@0'\C4"TB* (5H"AA)M0T$6[V
M)S1Q(L!P)$ *A0<0*9?N;B#@+M0$($D?@2$006*7(W (8!WA/QK\2GDX\,!I
M(%!A86H`< GP"PJ%%3$`1V ````#`! 0``````,`$1 `````0 `',(!G^VJ1
A/[P!0 `(,(!G^VJ1/[P!'@`]``$````!`````````-46
`
end

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 13:42:21 -0500
From: Lewis Roberts <lewis@chara.gsu.edu>
Subject: Submarine Fighters

Mike Sellers wrote:
To look at this the other way, which is where I started, are there good
reasons why we don't have small manned submarine fighters?  Someone
mentioned that it'd take most or all of the missile space in a boomer.  I'm
not sure I agree with that, but even so, is there some reason beyond
military tradition why we don't have the submarine equivalent of an
aircraft carrier?  


Fighter planes are able to go much faster than their carrier.  So they can cover
more ground, and can keep the expensive carrier away from the enemy, while
only letting cheap (relative to a carrier) planes get near the enemy.

But one manned submarines wouldn't be able to go any faster than a normal sub.
Due to drag and to noise restrictions.  So you don't have the same enhancment
of your forces, as you do with airplanes.  

That's what I think.
Lewis Roberts

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 97 19:57 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Realistic Gauss gun design...

In-Reply-To: <970331215757_-535557176@emout17.mail.aol.com>

<< Any idea at what tech level room temperature superconducter becomes 
possible? >>

9?

What temp are they up to now?

    ---------=========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: Wed, 2 Apr 97 19:56 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Loren's AOL account & Misjump!

In-Reply-To: <970331211815_100326.446_JHF142-6@CompuServe.COM>

<<  Bowls of 
fruit? Juice 'em and strain 'em.

Sooner or later, you can rustle up enough fuel for one jump 
to safety. >>

In a game I once ran, they actually used a cargo of fruit juice!

    ---------=========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: Wed, 2 Apr 97 19:56 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Loren's AOL account & Misjump!

In-Reply-To: <970331211815_100326.446_JHF142-6@CompuServe.COM>

<<  Bowls of 
fruit? Juice 'em and strain 'em.

Sooner or later, you can rustle up enough fuel for one jump 
to safety. >>

In a game I once ran, they actually used a cargo of fruit juice!

    ---------=========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: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 13:31:12 -0500
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: Blackshoes Unite

Evyn gutierrez <wmacdude@concentric.net> wrote: 

>> What can I say, I was a "blackshoe", not a "bubblehead", and always thought the
>> surface Navy was a better guide for Space based warfare.

>Cool, Somebodys gotta keep Kiwi in bizness. And also to whoop some damn 
>airdale ass. (Gee, can you tell this Deckape saw some carrier duty)

I can see that the "blackshoe" (i.e. old and out of date) Navy is still
smarting from the fact that they have been reduced to just escorting the
new AIR POWER elements. ;-)

As an ex "brownshoe" (i.e. new and more effective) I just wanted to set
the record straight.

Traveller Mode On
However, IMHO Sub war is much closer to space combat during the
detection and strategic movement phases. The opening, as it were. 
(Ships moving silently, everyone on edge as they attempt to detect the
enemy fleet or ship)

Once the detected, range closes and combat starts, it shifts to more
Battleship style combat. 
(Everyone knows where you are and you slug it out until one side has had
enough, then you have to get away)

Bob;
Ex Brownshoe and damm proud of it.
Marine, and even more proud of that.

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 12:01:32 -0700 (MST)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Much Ado About Starship Design

 
> Distances based on factors of three on the high end make it easy to
> calculate "time lag" since 1 light-second = approx. 300,000 km

I agree completely.  This makes scaling for different combat systems
easy, and it has a nice conversion to english descriptions since
nobody would say "There's a pirate ship far orbital distance from
us!"  They'd say "There's a pirate ship about a light second away!"
 
> Distances beyond 1 light-sec should use propogation of light as a basis.
> What's important at these great distances is *speed of communication*.
> It so happens that 1 AU approximates 500 light-seconds. 

Hear hear!

It also makes talking about ranges in english make more sense as
well as having the right feel (IMHO).
 
>  6 subregional          10 km     
>  7 regional             30 km
>  8 subcontinent        300 km      
>  9 continent         3,000 km     
> 10 orbital          30,000 km   0.1 light-sec
> 11 far orbit       300,000 km     1 light-sec
> 12 satellite           3e6 km    10 light-sec
> 13 far satellite?      9e6 km    30 light-sec
> 14 interplanetary        1 AU   500 light-sec 
> 15 outsystem          10.8 AU   1.5 light-hour
> 16 deeepspace          108 AU    15 light-hour
 
I don't like the lable placement, however.  I'd say:

6  subregional      10km
7  regional         30
8  subcont./low orbital  300
9  cont./orbital    3,000
10 far orbital      30,000
11 natural sat.          300,000
12 far nat. sat.    3e6
13 dunno about the others :-)

The problem is that 30,000km is GEO for earth, and LEO is closer to
300km.

> Keeping ranges for far orbit/satellite in divisions of light-seconds
> would be an advantage for an advanced space combat system ala Mayday or
> Brilliant Lances/Battle Rider, where 1 hex = 1 light-second.
 
Or a tenth of a ls.  Still, a great idea.

> It would be a Good Thing to allow for compatability and convertability
> between the simple "range band" system and a more advanced "hex based"
> system.
 
True.  I like this best of all proposed.

- -Merrick

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 20:11:54 +0100
From: Colin Hollands <cmhtml@london.mis.slb.com>
Subject: Silly Things to do on Ranges (probably verry olld bye now)

Sorry this is a long time comming but im in the middle of moving, so havent
read my tml's for a few days, down loaded them today and found 425 messages
waiting,

anyways,

back in 1984-5 when i was still a member of Her Majesties forces in Cyprus,
we had a range day at akatiri, the range there fires out over the sea, you
have an observer in a tower either side of the range watching for shipping
et al.

we had finished doing the shoot and were popping off the excess ammo when a
harrier jumpjet came across the bottom of the range at about 20-30mph and i
have to admit that along with everybody else i took a few potshots at its
tail before the cease fire was shouted, the harrier got about half way
across our line of fire before going into hyperdrive, i'd love to have been
a fly on the wall of the office when the pilot tried to explain to his CO
why he had bullet holes in his fusalage, especially since you have to book
those ranges 6 months in advance, and the RED danger flags were flying, so
he couldn't use the excuse that he didn't know we were firing that day.
"Reality is for when you have nothing more interesting to do, or you've run
out of money."

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1124
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Wednesday, April 2 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1125



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: RoM
Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)
Re: Trav 3D stuff
Re: Space fighters
Re: Submarine Fighters
Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)
re: submarine fighters (on topic, really)
Templars and Solomani etymology
Re: Sub fighters
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)
Re: Space fighters
Re: Blackshoes Unite
Re: Hospitalers
Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)
Re: Much Ado About Starship Design

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 14:33:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Ethan Henry <ehenry@mag1.magmacom.com>
Subject: Re: RoM

> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 22:41:46 +1000 (EST)
> From: Michael Barry <mbarry@pcug.org.au>
> Subject: Interstellar Empires
> 
> I have been wondering about how you would slice up the galaxy when 
> establishing an interstellar empire. We know that Cleon (or at least 
> Artemsus) divvied the First Imperium up into domains, which was probably 
> as good a way as any. 
> But what would have happened with the Rule of Man? How would the 
> expansion have been organised to minimise blue-on-blues? And above all, 
> what would have been the best way to keep the ravening b*stards' 
> attention well away from the homeworld? 
> 
> I have a suggestion: 
> Constellations. A noble house is given the rights to colonise any system 
> within a particular constellation, as seen from the homeworld (Terra, in 
> this case). The advantages of this: 

Well, the problem is that the starts you see in a contellation may
be separated by several hundred light-years along the depth axis,
as seen from Earth. 

I think that the RoM would have been pretty messy... lots of sub-lieutenants,
lieutenants, commanders, etc, suddenly in charge of whole systems,
gigantic highports bigger than anything Terra's ever built, etc. Most of
them would be scrambling to keep things running, much less worrying about 
how to divide up space.

> PS am I the only TMLer with any interest in the Rule of Man (ROM)? I 
> realise this sort of places me a long way from any support in the Milieu 
> Zero vs. Classic Traveller vs. New Era bunfight...   ;]

Not at all! I'd love to write up tons of stuff about the RoM...I think
it would be the most appealing environment to game in, for lots of reasons!
(I'm at work though, so I can't expond on it right now...)

Anyways, Michael and anyone else interested in the Rule of Man, we should
talk...

Ethan
ehenry@magma.ca

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 15:00:48 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)

In a message dated 4/2/97 7:25:59 PM, you wrote:

<<To look at this the other way, which is where I started, are there good
reasons why we don't have small manned submarine fighters?  Someone
mentioned that it'd take most or all of the missile space in a boomer.  I'm
not sure I agree with that, but even so, is there some reason beyond
military tradition why we don't have the submarine equivalent of an
aircraft carrier?  >>

Because fighters would not have the same role in submarine combat. Everything
in a military has certain roles. A jet fighter's primary role is air
supremecy, that is: denying airspace to enemy aircraft, specifically bombers.
Area denial is not a valid maritime role. The ocean is just too darn big.
That is why we have things like the SOSUS network to detect subs when they
cross into and out of an area. Then, if we want to deny the area to a
submarine, we have a location to start with, and we send in ASW operations.
These consist of carriers, picket ships, and most importantly; aircraft. Small
 one-man subs still would not be fast enough to function in an intercept
role, while ASW aircraft are.

This is the main reason that submarines are not a good analogy to space
combat, there is nothing in space combat that is faster than another
spaceship (other than a faster spaceship), thus fighters useful for space
combat, but sub-fighters are not useful for ASW (but air fighters are).

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 13:54:56 -0700
From: stedee@auto-trol.com (Steven Deemer)
Subject: Re: Trav 3D stuff

You wrote:
> 
> A while back somebody asked for Traveller 3D material for his RayDream
> Designer software. I (finally) sent my type S Scout texture maps but the
> address was wrong. Please e-mail a new working address.
> BTW Anybody else who wants a PhotoShop file of type S scout texturemaps
> with transperancy, bump et c please drop me a line and I'll attach it in my
> reply. Modeling the actual ship should be easy, basically a squashed
> pyramid.

Please, please, please send me a copy of this!

Thanks!

Steve Deemer
stedee@auto-trol.com

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 16:26:41 -0500 (EST)
From: "John P. Raynor" <john.raynor@yale.edu>
Subject: Re: Space fighters

On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Jyrki Paajanen wrote:
> This fighter/submarine discussion has made me wonder why every fighter 
> design in Traveller is either AF or SL. Unstreamlined hull materials take 
> less volume, is lighter and cost less. And because there are used from 
> other ships or space stations to fight starships there are no reason for 
> them to enter atmospheres, COACC has own special ships for that. Fighters 
> do not hide in to gas giants to ambush other ships re-fueling there, it is 
> work for SDBs. Because fighters enemies are usually bigger ships, there 
> need every edge they can get. And extra weight and lost volume don't help.
> Are there any reasons I haven't thought?

In the C.T. scenario book, "Trillion Credit Squadron," there *was* a
fighter with a semi-streamlined ("close structure," I believe) hull.  I
would argue that fighters *are* designed with atmospheric missions in
mind - providing support for invading troops, for example.  Fighters might
be based on sparsely populated frontier planets which lack orbital
starport facilities, too.
                                                              - J. Raynor

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 13:24:57 -0800
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

At 01:42 PM 4/2/97 -0500, Lewis Roberts wrote:
>Mike Sellers wrote:
>To look at this the other way, which is where I started, are there good
>reasons why we don't have small manned submarine fighters?  Someone
>mentioned that it'd take most or all of the missile space in a boomer.  I'm
>not sure I agree with that, but even so, is there some reason beyond
>military tradition why we don't have the submarine equivalent of an
>aircraft carrier?  
>
>Fighter planes are able to go much faster than their carrier.  So they can
cover
>more ground, and can keep the expensive carrier away from the enemy, while
>only letting cheap (relative to a carrier) planes get near the enemy.
>
>But one manned submarines wouldn't be able to go any faster than a normal
sub.
>Due to drag and to noise restrictions.  So you don't have the same enhancment
>of your forces, as you do with airplanes.  

Right, fine.  Listen, I'm _not_ trying to argue for adding small submarine
fighters to anyone's sub force.  What interests me is that if we can come
up with all these good reasons why we don't have such small sub fighters,
why do we think we might have small space fighters?  I think for all the
reasons I've heard so far as to why we don't have sub fighters, most can
generalize pretty well to an argument for not having small space fighters
too.  

Are small space fighters believable, or have we all seen Star Wars too many
times?  

- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 13:25:02 -0800
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)

At 03:00 PM 4/2/97 -0500, MrkGrismer@aol.com wrote:
>
>In a message dated 4/2/97 7:25:59 PM, you wrote:
>
><<To look at this the other way, which is where I started, are there good
>reasons why we don't have small manned submarine fighters?  Someone
>mentioned that it'd take most or all of the missile space in a boomer.  I'm
>not sure I agree with that, but even so, is there some reason beyond
>military tradition why we don't have the submarine equivalent of an
>aircraft carrier?  >>
>
>Because fighters would not have the same role in submarine combat. Everything
>in a military has certain roles. A jet fighter's primary role is air
>supremecy, that is: denying airspace to enemy aircraft, specifically bombers.
>Area denial is not a valid maritime role. The ocean is just too darn big.

So, what does this say about area (volume?) denial in space?  If you think
the ocean is big...

>This is the main reason that submarines are not a good analogy to space
>combat, there is nothing in space combat that is faster than another
>spaceship (other than a faster spaceship), thus fighters useful for space
>combat, but sub-fighters are not useful for ASW (but air fighters are).

Okay, so by hand-waving (not necessarily a bad thing), we've posited that
small space fighters are automatically faster than large space ships.
Given that, we return to the aircraft analogy for space fighters, since
their greater speed and agility makes them effective against ships of the
line.  

If that's pretty much people's thinking, then I have another question...
one other advantage that airplanes have over surface craft is that they can
move in 3 dimensions instead of just 2 (plus their speed, agility, etc.).
So to extend this to space combat, has anyone ever thought of creating a
small micro-jump drive (TL16+) that enables a _small_ mass (<50 tons say)
to micro-jump to another location within about 0.1 light-second distance
virtually instantaneously, and much closer to a gravitational mass than is
normally possible for jump drives?  The image of a huge battle rider
surrounded by small fighters blinking in and out to avoid return fire,
etc., is pretty cool I think.  What do you all think of this?

- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 13:48:57 -0800
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: submarine fighters (on topic, really)

mike wrote:
>Okay, to steer this back on topic somewhat, why don't we have small
>submarine fighters, perhaps deployable from a attack sub or a boomer?
>These could be small manned subs or even drones; presumably even a small
>number of these would make normal tactics difficult for the opposing sub.

For the same reason we don't have small attack speedboats carried by 
modern large surface warships - or at least for similar reasons. Small
"subfighters" would have no speed advantage over big submarines (as 
indicated elsewhere, they might well have a speed disadvantage.) Sub-vs-sub
weapons are sufficiently faster than subs or subfighters that agility
isn't a factor in dodging them, so subfighters would be just as easy to hit.
Sub sensors - especially good passive sensors - are *huge*; a subfighter would
be at a major disadvantage relative to a big sub. Effective weapons are
also pretty big. A subfighter could use short-ranged torpedoes, perhaps - but
it would be bigger (including the fighter) than the same amount of long-
range torpedo, so why bother?

Some might argue that similar reasoning would indicate that space fighters
are of limited use compared to big warships, but let's not re-open
that particular can of Hiver larvae.

Bruce

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 16:52:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Templars and Solomani etymology

   Hi.

   I had a little time today to look up some stuff on the real Templars
   and Hospitallers.  Interesting stuff!  What does this have to do with
   Traveller?  Well...

   Leonard Erikson raised the possibility that the word "Solomani" had a
   latin origin.  If it did, it might have meant "Followers of Solomon". 
   Why would emperor Hiroshi refer to some followers of Solomon in his
   regency address to the Imperium?  It turns out that the real,
   original name of the Templars was "The Poor Fellow-soldiers of Christ
   and the Temple of SOLOMON"! 

   OK, all you conspiracy theorists, get to work!

   Some more factoids about the Templars:

   They eschewed pomp and did not wear uniforms. They had greater income
   and military strength than Philip IV when he suppressed them. (Why
   did they submit, then?)  To avoid enriching Philip, all of their
   properties were handed over to the Knights Hospitaller of Jerusalem,
   the original military order, which inspired the Templars in the first
   place.  Philip IV made up outrageous lies about heretical, secret
   ceremonies which the Templars supposedly performed.  They were
   extra-national; no secular authority had any control over them.  Many
   Templars were former heretics or criminals, doing penance for their
   sins by joining the austere order.

   It's no wonder that conspiracists had a field day with these guys!

   About the Hospitallers:

   There have been scads of orders of Hospitallers over the centuries,
   the most prominent, by far, being various orders of Augustinians,
   Dominicans, and Franciscans, who still run many hospitals all over
   the world.  The important military order, "the Knights of St. John of
   Jerusalem, of Rhodes, and of Malta", was founded in Jerusalem before
   the first crusade and still exists today, and (like the Templars) is
   considered a sovereign nation.  Historically, they differed from the
   Templars by admitting women into their order and allowing Jews to
   hold high-ranking staff and medical positions; they were also rather
   less militaristic, leaving some of the fighting to the Templars, to
   Russia, and to Austria.  Because they weren't so well armed, they
   were less likely to frighten the local monarchs, and so fared better
   than the Templars after the crusades ended.  The hospitallers
   concentrated on helping pilgrims via hospitals and shelters, whereas
   the Templars put more effort into providing escorts on the road.

   Other than these aforementioned differences, the Hospitallers and
   Templars were very similar.  This is hardly surprising, since the
   Templars patterned themselves after the Hospitallers, even adopting
   the same patron saint, St. John.  Both orders were founded in
   Jerusalem, the Hospitallers before the crusade, the Templars after
   (which helps explain their militaristic, macho bent). Both emphasized
   the importance of chivalry and nobless oblige; both reserved certain
   important ceremonial and administrative positions for pedigreed
   nobles.  (Although in both orders, the highest officers were appointed by
   the pope.)

   All of this makes excellent fodder for adventures in a lawless,
   feudal society, like the interstellar community of M0.  Don't
   introduce just one holy order of knights into your campaign,
   introduce several rival and complementary orders!

   -Rob

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 13:51:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Sub fighters

> Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 11:41:29 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
> 
>    The Japanese used small, 1-man submarines in WWII.  They were not
>    generally successful.  Perhaps a military historian can tell us why.

Heck, the very first military submarines were one-man crank-driven jobbies
used during the War of 1812 to punch holes below the waterline in British
vessels in American harbors.  This was highly experimental and
staggeringly dangerous, but they did damage a few ships this way.

>    1) Communication: The sub's greatest asset is its stealth.  When subs
>    begin communicating with one another enough to organize into wings
>    and groups (necessary for effective fighter combat) they give away
>    their position.

Yes, that's the number-one limitation on sub tactics -- there's no way to
communicate from a sub without giving away your position.  The one partial
exception is ELF communication, but that's of no tactical use. 

>    2) Visibility: Even when fighters are maintaining radio silence, they
>    keep in formation by observing where their wingmen are, but
>    underwater, you really can't see anything.  Again, this prevents
>    effective use of group tactics by fighter subs.

If you know your own guys' sonar signatures, you should be able to track
them well enough to stay in formation, especially given other clues (see
below).

>    3) Logistics:  Another sub asset is the ability of the the sub to hang
>    around near enemy strongholds until it sees its chance to do damage.
>    Small craft simply do not have the supplies necessary for staying far
>    from home for a long time.  As for rendez-vous with mother ships or
>    resupply vessels, see (1) and (2) above.

I think we're all talking in terms of an aircraft-carrier model of
operations; "fighter" subs would be carried in a larger sub between battle
deployments.  Finding, communicating with, and docking with the "carrier"
would be relatively trivial, if not in a combat/stealth situation.  If you
*are* in such a situation, though, it gets *very* hard.

A problem with the "carrier" model is that submariners hate having any
more holes in their ships than strictly necessary.  Launch and recovery
ports for something fighter-sized would be big weak points in the carrier
sub.  In general, any new sub ordnance needs to be deployable through a
standard torpedo tube (40" diameter, if memory serves), because the Navy
is utterly unwilling to cut new holes in their ships -- and I can't say I
blame them!

>    It seems I once heard something about Russian tactics for using subs
>    in squadrons.  This means they have overcome obstacles (1) and (2)
>    somehow.  How do they do it?  Does it work well?

The key to understanding the old Soviet military is to see the whole thing
as a giant distributed computer program.  Individual units and their
commanders were given very little discretion in how to fight; instead, you
evaluated the tactical situation, opened the ops book to the appropriate
page, and did what it told you to do.  Thus, the Soviet sub squadrons
could work because each skipper knew what he would do if he were
commanding any of the other boats -- which is almost as good as being in
communication with them.

And it works well in the sense that everybody does what they're supposed
to do, on time, in the right place, in tight coordination with everyone
else.  It doesn't work well if (a) the enemy does something the ops book
doesn't mention, or (b) the enemy has read or figured out your ops book. :)

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 13:40:42 -0800
From: jdconnors@genmagic.com (joel connors)
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

This is great stuff and really has the brain working over time.

I have compiled comments from Erwin, Merrick and MrkGrismer here.


>> To throw some variables into the mix.
>> 
<My Comments>
>> A star fighter, or small vehicle is immensely more maneuverable that a
>> Starship.
>>> <Erwin>
>Naturally. Although, MT rules state that the maximum agility you
>can have is 6. This implies (although a bit unbelievable) that my
>Imperial Star Destroyer, if designed with agility-6, is just as
>maneuverable as the TIE fighters it launches.
>>However, in general fighters are more maneuverable than larger ships.
><Merrick>
>Meaning it can _rotate_ faster (change facing) than a bigger ship.
>

One note, is maneuverability aside, a 5 ton craft has a lot less inertia to
move.

><My Comments>
>> A small craft attempting to hit a nearby object with grapples, does not need
>> it to hold still to hit it.
>><Erwin>
>Are you using some specialized grappling equipment? I was assuming
>you're simply trying to link airlocks or something similar. What
>you're saying makes sense if you have specialized equipment for this
>purpose (which most ships, I'd argue, don't carry). If you do have
>this stuff designed, I'd like to see it! I'll probably end up 
>using it in my campaign.
><Merrick>
>What if the target is rotating along its long axis (a typical
maneuver to bring the turrets to bear)?
><MrkGrismer>
>No, but if you hit a spinning ship with a grapple you're in for a wild ride,
>especially if you're much smaller.

Okay the purpose here is not to Actually connect to an airlock, that is pure
bonus the object is to connect to the ship. 

Grapples- Well I am sort a flying on this one so far. My vision would be of
a multi function grapple, that combined magnetic and old fashioned hook
design. This would allow for a lock over most of the ships hull. As I recall
a ship is ripe with, guns, antenae and such.

As to the rolling of a Starship. This could open a whole can of worms.
- -Does the ship turn continously?
- -Why would it need to turn continously?
- -If the ship did turn continously, how does it lock on guns, or turn a
damaged side to the enemy?

It is my understanding that a ship turns on it's axis to bring guns/sensor
to bear, or to turn a damaged hull away from your opponent. What would be
the benifit to turning all the time? I can think of the above two reasons
not too.


><My Comments>
> Example- A small 5 ton grav driven spacecraft intercepts and matches
> relative velocity with a 200 ton free trader. Using multiple grapples the
> small craft latches onto the larger ship and reals itself in.
><Merrick>
>The target is rotating and reels the 5 ton ship in instead.  Because
>of this the 5 ton ship ends up next door, but pointing the wrong
>way.  The troops have to crawl onto the target and cut through (and
>shoulfd they slip they go zinging off since the target is
>spinning).
><MrkGrismer>
>Well, in TNE both craft would be spinning, so as soon as the multiple
>grapples are latched on, the small craft would be wipped into an orbit around
>it.

See my questions regarding spinning of starships above.

Even if the ship rotated a small craft with a strong flight computer and
design could handle the stress involved in such manuevers.
 
>> Different Variable Arguments
>> <My Comments>
>> If you cannot see it, how can you dodge it?
>> ><Erwin>
>In MT, 25000 is considered visual range. Thus, you can see it.
><Merrick>
>Evasion isn't the same as dodging.  Dodging does imply you know
>where they other guy is, evasion tries to be random to avoid
>prediction.

Yes at 25000 klick you can see a decent sized object if its white or gray.
If the craft is black then the visibility is strictly reduced.

Also yes you can see objects out your window. But how well can you pick out
a small object in a large area, especially if you are undergoing manuevers? 
Ever tried to spot a moving car in the parking lot while on the tilt a whirl
in the midway? Sure you can see the parking lot from that hieght, but can
you pick out a distinct object.

><My Comments>
>> How low a signature does a Grav craft have, how low if it is stealthed?
><Erwin>
>Irrelevant, if you're in visual range.

I disagree, even in todays modern air and navel combat, you have to know
where an enemy is before looking with your naked eye. 
The AWAC will tell you there is a target in bound at 9 o'clock. Only now do
you have a referance to look for it visually. Even then it will be your
copilot doing the looking while you fly the plane.

Sensors are the key to space combat. If the target cannot be detected than
fighting it is so much more difficult.

>> <My Comments>
>> How capable our Starship sensor at detecting a very small craft when it is
>> less than a half klick away, a 100 yards, a 100 feet?

Two sides to this


Visual- If you are flying a C-130 cargo plane, you have the cockpit windows
and maybe a half dozen others. If a plane gets right under you, you cannot
see it, because your field of vision is resrticted. If the Loadmaster yelss
out tat he sees the target, the pilot still must react.
(While I know it is pure fiction, who here saw the movie Executive decision?
There a plane connected with another without ever being spotted. Granted in
that case the pilots did not even know they were a target.)

Electronic-
In todays electronic battlefield, you run into the concept of clutter all
the time. If you were on the USS Enterprise at night, how would the bridge
know that there was a 20 foot boat 10 feet of the port? Wait I'll answer
that, a crewman would see it from the main deck. However if no one was on
deck there are no sensor to let you know its there.

><My Comments>
>> Even if a Starship can detect at short range, how much is directly available
>> to the pilot? At some point this data is so fast that a sensor tech has to
>> pass the info along.
><Erwin>
>In starship combat, each turn is 20 minutes. That's plenty of time
>for the pilot to react. Sorry, I don't own T4 yet so I don't know
>if its turns are different.
><Merrick>
>Let the computer evade/shoot/whatever (point defense does this
>now).

Yes a turn is 20 minutes, that gives both pilots plenty of time to react.
Two edged sword.

Point Defense falls into the next comments.
 
><My Comments>
> A small low signature craft (use the same 5 ton example) Matches course with
> a starship and gets with in its sensor coverage before ever trying to grapple.
><Merrick>
>It's detected a long way before (remember that if a 5 ton ship can
>get that close, for real warfare 5 ton missiles will kill
>battleships).

A missile moving at 6G+ on a glowing trail of propulsion exhaust is darn
easy to spot. 
Compare that to a grav driven, radar absorbing hull, low EM signature craft.

I would attest that today an F-117 at night could get with in 20 feet of a
C-130, even if the C-130 knew it was out there and trying to get close.
When you move to the world of Starships, zero-g, armored hulls etc. That
"F-117" could not only get with in 20 feet of the "Cargo Plane", it could
potentially lock on.

Again, thanks so much for the feedback. You have all brought up great points
that are helping greatly to enhance my concept. 

Best,
Joel Connors

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 17:21:22 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)

In a message dated 4/2/97 9:06:40 PM, Robert Flammang wrote:

<<It seems I once heard something about Russian tactics for using subs
   in squadrons.  This means they have overcome obstacles (1) and (2)
   somehow.  How do they do it?  Does it work well?>>

The Russians use subs in pairs. Generally for the advantage of one moving at
creep speed and taking sensors while the other crashes at full speed (a sub
at full speed is blind). They hip hop.

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 17:18:45 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Space fighters

In a message dated 4/2/97 9:42:05 PM, Jyrki Paajanen wrote:

<<This fighter/submarine discussion has made me wonder why every fighter 
design in Traveller is either AF or SL. Unstreamlined hull materials take 
less volume, is lighter and cost less. And because there are used from 
other ships or space stations to fight starships there are no reason for 
them to enter atmospheres, COACC has own special ships for that. Fighters 
do not hide in to gas giants to ambush other ships re-fueling there, it is 
work for SDBs. Because fighters enemies are usually bigger ships, there 
need every edge they can get. And extra weight and lost volume don't help.
Are there any reasons I haven't thought?>>

Fighters may be employed against surface targets, however, and for that they
would need to be AF. Remember that any warfleet's goal is going to be surface
bombardment, or at least interdiction, and if they have nothing they can land
then they are pretty useless.

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 17:30:52 -0500
From: Bill Rutherford <worj@topgun.cinecom.com>
Subject: Re: Blackshoes Unite

<snip...>
>I can see that the "blackshoe" (i.e. old and out of date) Navy is still
>smarting from the fact that they have been reduced to just escorting the
>new AIR POWER elements. ;-)
>
>As an ex "brownshoe" (i.e. new and more effective) I just wanted to set
>the record straight.

How very strange!  Back when I was in the army, we referred to the
brownshoes as the oldtimers and the blackshoes as the newbies!

- ---------------
Bill Rutherford
worj@topgun.cinecom.com

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 15:24:58 -0800
From: "David P. Summers" <dsummers@mail.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Hospitalers

 Thu, 3 Apr 1997 01:07:38 +1000 (EST), Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>;

>Cool.  As i said i wasnt reading the thread.  Will you have the masons and
>the Illuminati?

Well, I've tought since the "Hiver plots" threads first started
that the Hivers make great Illuminati...

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 00:17:21 -0800
From: Neil Simpson <catwalk@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)

Robert Flammang wrote:
>    The Japanese used small, 1-man submarines in WWII.  They were not
>    generally successful.  Perhaps a military historian can tell us why.
>    To get the conversation moving, let me contribute a few thoughts by
>    someone who has no idea what he's talking about (me):--The one man subs the Japs used(called Kaiten) were the naval version of the 
kamikaze a minisub with a one ton(I think) explosive charge,you rammed the 
enemy ship
>    It seems I once heard something about Russian tactics for using subs
>    in squadrons.  This means they have overcome obstacles (1) and (2)
>    somehow.  How do they do it?  Does it work well?--If I recall correctly the Russian method for using subs in groups was to 
divide the sea in areas and assign a sub to each area,anything that entered 
the area was a hostile and could be attacked.

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 97 17:02:49 -0600
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Much Ado About Starship Design

On 04/02/97 at 10:56 AM,  Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca> said:

> Keeping ranges for far orbit/satellite in divisions of light-seconds
> would be an advantage for an advanced space combat system ala Mayday or
> Brilliant Lances/Battle Rider, where 1 hex = 1 light-second.

Agreed!

For spaceship movement (and space combat) I use 2 scales:

Combat/Detailed  - .1 light-second (~30km)

Movement/General -  1 light-second (~300km)

It seems lately every time I post it's to present how what I do is
different, and I feel a rant coming on.  Would you allow me a little rant,
please?

I haven't participated much in this particular discussion, because my games
are very different from 'canon' and will continue to be different from
whatever the new 'canon' turns out to be!  For example, in my universe, the
normal in-system propulsion method is the Stutterjump Drive.  Pseudo-speeds
for ships range from below 2Mk to a little above 20Mk per hour, and we
measure their movement in ls (light-seconds) and dls (deci-light-seconds). 
Combat turns are 1 minute, and effective ranges top out at about 3ls
(900,000k).  FTL is jump with many of the standard Traveller features and
limitations, but when you get down to the details there are some major
differences.

The *feel* and general background of the games I run is close to standard
Traveller.  It's this *feel* that I define as Traveller, I've run games in
the Imperium ficton, but I've also run games in a number of variants of
that ficton, additionally I'm running a game in a variant of the Trek
ficton, and am considering running one in a variant of the "Space 1889"
ficton, and in all these games I consider myself running Traveller!  It's
not a specific plot, history, or even technologies that makes Traveller..at
least not to me.

After reading Marc's and Joe's posts about the coming "Traveller
Deluxe"..T5.., I sat back and considered just how different the mechanics
of my games are from the *published* rules.  Much of my technology is
different.  Character Generation is different, and so are tasks.  Combat is
*very* different.  I generate planetary
systems differently.  Virtually every rule I use is a house rule. In most
cases the backstories are only similar, sometimes completely different. 
I'd *really* like the ship/equipment/weapons design sequences to be able to
produce stuff that will work in my games, but they never have, and I've
just about given up hope on that.

Lots of folks want vectored STL movement, I don't.  Lot's of people think
space combat should be "dogfights in space", I don't.  Other folks,
probably think boarding and prize taking is over the top space opera...well
maybe it is, but I want it anyway.  Some people want to set their games in
a "shared" universe, I want to create my own...so who's stopping me? 
Nobody!  However, I'd *like* TRAVELLER to make it easy for any of me..for
any of us..to build our own universes with varied technologies,
assumptions, and backgrounds. Vain hope?  I'm afraid so!

Last spring, I decided to spend the summer turning TNE/2300/Tw2k/FFS into a
unified system that would work in my kind of universe, then I heard about
T4 and waited to see if it would make all that work unnecessary.  It
didn't!

It's a year later, and I'm back to creating my own system.  There are a
number of things in T4 I'll use, but I'll be pulling from *all* the other
sources too, and this time I'm not waiting for T5. I'll buy it, and
shamelessly steal anything good from it, but I'm not waiting anymore!

Ok, rant mode off.

Now, don't think I'm preparing to disappear.  In my mind, I'm really still
playing Traveller even if it only bares a passing resemblance to what the
'canonists' play.  <g> 

Eris,
    the Heretic! 
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1125
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Wednesday, April 2 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1126



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Hospitalers
Re: Submarine fighters
Re: Misjumps
Re: Misjumps
Re: Hospitalers
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1124
Re: Trav 3D stuff
Re: Raytrace program (off topic)
Re: submarine fighters 
Re: Submarine Fighters
Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed  systems)
Re: Sub fighters
Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed   systems)
Traveller on IRC
Re: Submarine Fighters
Re: Templars and Solomani etymology
Re: Much Ado About Starship Design
re: submarine fighters (on topic, really)
Interstellar Empires
Further further education

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 20:44:45 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Hospitalers

On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Zane H. Healy wrote:

I only know the history of templars as it crossed paths with the
Hospitaliers, from the little that was said in the Hospitaliers history
they disbanded as a religious order because they had become excessively
corrupt.  Most of there wealth was then handed over to the last remaining
knighthood, the Hospitaliers.

The hospitaliers appreciated the gesture, and it was a substantial amount
(counting all the estates etc) but it didnt match there wealth, so unless
a hell of a lot of these monies disapeared, i would dispute they were the
wealthest order.

The Hospitaliers were pirates/police after they were ejected from
jerusalem, they maintained fleets as well as various Island fortress'.
They also had estates and castles throughout christendom.   This seems to
imply a huge amount of wealth.   

So, if the only reason the french king (though i was sure it was the
spanish king, Phillip, not the french king) wanted to disband an order
because they wanted there wealth, why didnt they disband the
Hosipataliers?

Concurrently, why was most of the Templars holdings then handed over to
the Hospitaliers?  This doesnt make sense with your supposition of "they
wanted there wealth".

Also, both orders swore allegience to the Pope, and recognised no other
authority outside there own orginisations except for the Pope, so the king
of france can want all he likes, its the Pope who had the final say.

Besides this though, i dont know enougth about the Templars to argue
anything about them with any authority.  Im just comparing what you said
with what i know.  I think this is way off topic for the list, so i'll
stop ranting now.

> The Templar Knights were disbanded because they had way more wealth than
> was good for them.  The King of France, and others wanted to get that
> wealth.  That is why they were disbanded.  The Templars were more than a
> fighting order, they were also bankers and controlled much of the wealth in
> Europe.
> 
> Interestingly most of the wealth supposedly disappeared along with
> some/most of the order when they were shut down.
> 
>              Zane
> 
> 
> | Zane H. Healy                    | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
> | healyzh@ix.netcom.com (primary)  | Linux Enthusiast          |
> | healyzh@holonet.net (alternate)  | Mac Programmer            |
> +----------------------------------+---------------------------+
> | For Empire of the Petal Throne, and Traveller Role Playing   |
> | see http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/                      |
> 
> 
> 


PaChi,

michl

electric RAIN                      http://www.electric-rain.net/


A self-made man is for ever
praising his creator

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 18:46:40 -0500
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Submarine fighters

>The environment is just *too* different. You can't draw many (if any)
>useful analogies between space and submarines.

1) Self-contained life-support habitats
2) Environments very hostile to human life
3) Large, expensive vessels requiring regular maintenance and 
specialized skills to keep in prime shape
4) Communication problems/lags require a high degree of 
autonomy
5) Both operate in a 3-D environment (though Traveller less so <g>)
6) Both conduct combat at non-visual ranges (if the Captains are 
smart) and nearly entirely via sensors of some sort

And that's what I can come up with just off the top of my head...

**********************************************************
  Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
 CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 18:46:47 -0500
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Misjumps

>  In response to "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
>Subject: Re: Misjumps
>
>The players in our CT campaign used a fuel bladder
>concept.  Space was used to build a bladder, which
>could be collapsed and then "replaced" with living
>space.  The most they designed in was a Jump 2
>capacity of reserve.  The space became a Drop
>Tube ready room on a 1000dT Cruiser.  The capability
>was Jump 3 plus Jump 2.  So it took two weeks to
>get where they wanted....
>
>Eric

Uh, ummmm, nope, sorry Eric, but I don't know what that
all is in reference to.... Normally I'm a believer in minimal 
quoting, but I jest ain't smart enuf to figure this one out <g>

**********************************************************
  Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
 CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 18:46:43 -0500
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Misjumps

>misjump will always place you in a system with access to fuel) such a
>misjump will place the ship somewhere far away from where they are
>supposed to be with the inevetable loss of, on the average, 1/3rd of a
>year's revenue. If you think ordinary starship economics are tough, just
>imagine what a such a loss roughly once per year (a regular freighter or 
>liner ought to be able to do 35 jumps per year) will do to your bottom
>line.

I had missed that point as well! You realize that this means most ship
owners will probably become "skippers" through no fault of their own; the
first THUDDD competition proved just how hard it is to make a profit under
*normal* circumstances...

If this rule is allowed to stand, I think Pan-Imperia may get out of the 
commercial ship business and start building bounty-hunters! <g>

**********************************************************
  Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
 CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 21:05:44 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Hospitalers

On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Dorn, Michael wrote:

hahahahahahahaha <insert evil laugth>... ummm, oops excuse me.

I refute that.

> Has anyone else noticed how relentless Solomani is in refuting the
> possibility of the existence of Templars?
> Perhaps he is one!
> >
> 


SaHua,

michl

electric RAIN                      http://www.electric-rain.net/


If i know i'm going crazy,
i must not be insane.

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 19:11:11 -0400
From: sboyko@nbnet.nb.ca (sboyko)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1124

Hello, all!  I've been lurking for some time, and I haven't seen an answer
to this question, so...  (my first post appears to have been eaten somewhere)

In the MegaTraveller combat rules, both personal and ship-to-ship, they
discuss pinpoint targeting.  As I read it, there is no penalty to attempt
pinpoint targeting, and if you miss the exceptional success, but still hit,
it hits as normal.  Why would anyone NOT attempt a pinpoint on every shot?

Also, is a version of the errata for MT available online somewhere?

Thanks, and this is a great list to read!

Steve Boyko
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8489

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 21:10:16 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Trav 3D stuff

On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Anders Backman wrote:

> A while back somebody asked for Traveller 3D material for his RayDream
> Designer software. I (finally) sent my type S Scout texture maps but the
> address was wrong. Please e-mail a new working address.
> BTW Anybody else who wants a PhotoShop file of type S scout texturemaps
> with transperancy, bump et c please drop me a line and I'll attach it in my
> reply. Modeling the actual ship should be easy, basically a squashed
> pyramid.

You can send it to me, id like to see it.  Wish i knew about this, as i
already went to teh effort of creating one.  Im working on Traveller
plugin for a game, and as such, im working my way through the starship
manual and converting each ship into a lightwave object for rendering.

If anyone else has any traveller 3d objects, id appreciate them (i'll
mention your name as a conributor - no money, just glory:)

Templars need not apply.

SaHua,

michl

electric RAIN                      http://www.electric-rain.net/


If i know i'm going crazy,
i must not be insane.

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 21:19:47 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Raytrace program (off topic)

On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, StarWolf wrote:

Wow, i did this about 3 weeks ago.  I didnt find any adequate sharewar
programs.  I tried the following;

Pixel3d - not a modeler, just a rendering package, handy for conversions.
Rhino3d - looks good, but i only use it for converting as well.
Rotc3d(or some such) - to crippled to be useful.

I ended up using professional software - lightwave 3d 5.0.  If you can
afford it, this si the best.  Its waht they use for b5, DSV and various
other sci-fi stuff.

> This may be off topic, but please bear with me. I look for a easy to
> use shareware raytrace program for win95, in the purpose to draw
> Traveller ships.
> 
> Please send me an email with your suggestions, and why I ought to
> select that particular program.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Roger Myhre                 |"Never worry about theory as long as the 
> http://home.sn.no/~starwolf | machinery does what it's supposed to do."
> Universal Internet          |
>             Number: 127772  |                  -- R. A. Heinlein
> 


SaHua,

michl

electric RAIN                      http://www.electric-rain.net/


If i know i'm going crazy,
i must not be insane.

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 19:34:14 -0400
From: Christian Razukas <chrisraz@clark.net>
Subject: Re: submarine fighters 

>>Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu> wrote:
>>The Japanese used small, 1-man submarines in WWII.

The Japanese did indeed field one man submarines during the Second World
War but only to marginal effect, as detailed below.  Indeed, the Japanese
mini-subs (called kaiten) were *kamikaze* submarines.  And thus their
utility for player characters seems marginal to this author.

The effectiveness of the kaiten program is stated in a quote from Kamikaze
Submarine (subtitled "I was a human torpedo!"  The Fantastic Story of
Japan's Submarine Kamikazes) by Petty Officer Yutaka Yokota of the Imperial
Japanese Navy with Joseph D. Harrington.

"When World War II clsoed, the Japanese thought they had sunk some 40
Allied ships, including a British cruiser of the Leander class, through
their kaiten effort.  A check of all available respources reveals they sank
only two U.S. Navy ships, the tanker Mississinewa...and the destroyer
Underhill.  This ship was actually sunk by friendly (allied) forces on July
24, 1945, after being hit by a kaiten.  Only one U.S. merchant ship, SS
Canada Victory, was the victim of a kaiten, going down on April 27, 1945.
These three vessels, measured against the eight (regular) submarines (lost
deploying or testing the kaiten) and nearly 900 Japanese lives lost in the
kaiten program, make the enemy's sacrifice seem fruitless."

"Kamikaze Submarine" also states that the kaiten were 54 feet long and
carried a 3,000 pound high explosive warhead in its nose.  It was guided to
a direct hit (hypothetically) by a human pilot who'd die in the blast.
Humans were used to provide more accurate guidance systems than available
in the 1940s, but the technology of the kaiten was not adequate and many
died in the testing phase of the device.

- ----
chrisraz@clark.net
"I have Neiman-Marcus cookie recipies."

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 22:58:27 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Mike Sellers wrote:

> Right, fine.  Listen, I'm _not_ trying to argue for adding small submarine
> fighters to anyone's sub force.  What interests me is that if we can come
> up with all these good reasons why we don't have such small sub fighters,
> why do we think we might have small space fighters?  I think for all the
> reasons I've heard so far as to why we don't have sub fighters, most can
> generalize pretty well to an argument for not having small space fighters
> too.  
> 
> Are small space fighters believable, or have we all seen Star Wars too many
> times?  

Its the British High Command in wwII all over again.

The only reason you wouldnt have Fighters in space is because of shields.
Shields can keep the little pee shooters away long enougth for each one to
be targeted and destryoed, thats why fighters dont exist in the Star Trek
world.  The smallest effective fighting ship was the Klingon Bird Of Prey,
and it would take 3 or 4 to evenly match the old Enterprise.

Now, in the REAL world (or a world like Traveller which is realistic  enougth)
The Fighter is a Highly effective strike weapon.  They can out maneuver
any large frontline ship, they can zoom in and target important systems
(engines, gun bays, the bridge) and if you have enougth of them, no ship,
no matter how much ant-aircraft they have, will be able to cope.

Add to this the fact that each fighter has Canons and, maybe even bombs
which it can hit the vessel with.  Remember, there are no shields, so each
bullet/laser/bomb does as much damage as if they came from an equally
large vessel.  Multiply this power by 50 times, or a hundred times (1 for
each fighter) and you have an effective, nigh, invincible weapon.  The
only defense is, you guessed it, fighters.

Since the invention of seabourne aircraft, the battleship has become an
auxilary weapon, and the dreadnaught is extinct.  The battleships value
lies in its ability to shore bombard, whos value is questionable as
opposed to massed air strikes.  Everything below the Battleship has been
relegated to protecting the Carrier.

So, in a world where you have large space vessels, who can be most easily
compared to seaships AND no shields (in the star trek sense) the fighter
is king :)

WHich is what i never liked about Starwars.  Each side had shields, which,
unless they were pathetically weak would make X-wings and Tie-Fighters
pretty useless.

My 2c  comments welcome.

No compromise, no regrets.

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 23:05:52 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed  systems)

On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Mike Sellers wrote:

> If that's pretty much people's thinking, then I have another question...
> one other advantage that airplanes have over surface craft is that they can
> move in 3 dimensions instead of just 2 (plus their speed, agility, etc.).
> So to extend this to space combat, has anyone ever thought of creating a
> small micro-jump drive (TL16+) that enables a _small_ mass (<50 tons say)
> to micro-jump to another location within about 0.1 light-second distance
> virtually instantaneously, and much closer to a gravitational mass than is
> normally possible for jump drives?  The image of a huge battle rider
> surrounded by small fighters blinking in and out to avoid return fire,
> etc., is pretty cool I think.  What do you all think of this?


I like this idea.  Asimov had something similiar (but not exactly the
same) in Foundation.  In the late stages of the Foundation they were at
war with some larger, but not as advanced power.

Half the foundations fleet turned up for a final battle, as the more
numerous enemy advanced, the Foundation fleet slowly withdrew.  At a
predcribed time, the rest of the foundation fleet (mostly fighter class
ships) jumped into the combat amidst the larger enemy fleet where they
proceded to attack and cause chaos, as the main Foundation fleet also
engaged.



No compromise, no regrets.

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 23:19:09 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Sub fighters

On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Craig Berry wrote:

> > Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 11:41:29 -0400 (EDT)
> > From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
> > 
> >    The Japanese used small, 1-man submarines in WWII.  They were not
> >    generally successful.  Perhaps a military historian can tell us why.
> 

Ill-supplied, one shot weapons.  If im not mistaken, these one man subs
were "bicycle" powered, so there range was practically zero.


> >    It seems I once heard something about Russian tactics for using subs
> >    in squadrons.  This means they have overcome obstacles (1) and (2)
> >    somehow.  How do they do it?  Does it work well?
> 

Does the term "Wolf Pack" ring a bell?  German U-Boats alway worked in
teams called wolf packs.  A wolf pack was about 7 ships large.  They would
disperse and leave about a 20 km gap between each of them.  Once a target
had been spotted the point sub would radio the rest of the pack, and they
would converge on there victim.  If the Convoy was a large one they may
even call in another wolf pack.  Once they had converged they would retain
radio silence and shadow the convoy untill it was dark.  They would then
surface and attack (old subs had to surface to attack).

Here is a prime example of "squadrons" of subs, which worked effectively.

Also, the giving away position by radioing wasnt a problem in wwII,
because they couldnt trianglete the subs position, nor could they crack
the
code quick enougth to stop the attack.  Also, in wwII once a pack
converged they didnt care much if there position was given away, because,
unless the convoy had ASW, they couldnt do jack. 

Michael,

No compromise, no regrets.

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 18:23:22 -0800
From: "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed   systems)

>To look at this the other way, which is where I started, are there good
>reasons why we don't have small manned submarine fighters?  Someone
>mentioned that it'd take most or all of the missile space in a boomer.  I'm
>not sure I agree with that, but even so, is there some reason beyond

Guilty :^)

>military tradition why we don't have the submarine equivalent of an
>aircraft carrier?

You know it just hit me, and considering I was involved in ASW for the last
three years I should thought of it earlier.  Noise!  A sub's greatest asset
is stealth, and it's greatest enemy is noise!

I'm fairly sure the launch/recovery gear would make a lot of noise.

Here is another reason.  Cost.  Any idea what a sub cost's compared to an
SH-60B or two?  Neither do I, but the choppers are cheaper by quite a lot.
In fact a Oliver Hazard Perry, which can hold 2 SH-60B's (3 if you left one
on deck), and is an ASW platform itself is considerably cheaper than a
Submarine.  That being said, the OHP might get the sub, but my money would
be on the sub.  But if you replace the frigate and helicopters with a
squadron of S-3B's launched from a carrier....

               Zane



| Zane H. Healy                    | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh@ix.netcom.com (primary)  | Linux Enthusiast          |
| healyzh@holonet.net (alternate)  | Mac Programmer            |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------+
| For Empire of the Petal Throne, and Traveller Role Playing   |
| see http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/                      |

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 19:07:12 +0000
From: "Suzette C. Dollar" <suzd@pop.goodnet.com>
Subject: Traveller on IRC

Greetings!

There will be no official Traveller Chat session on Thursday, April 
3, 1997.  The IG server is unavailable.

I will be on Undernet #Traveller on the StLouis.mo.us.undernet.org 
server, ports 6660-66669. I look forward to chatting about anything 
Traveller with anyone who joins me.

Suz

Suzette C. Dollar
#traveller Channel Manager
suzd@goodnet.com

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 02:23:41 +0000
From: Garry Ward <Garry.E.Ward@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

At 06:42 PM 4/2/97 +0000, you wrote:
>Mike Sellers wrote:
><snip>
>
>Fighter planes are able to go much faster than their carrier.  So they can
cover
>more ground, and can keep the expensive carrier away from the enemy, while
>only letting cheap (relative to a carrier) planes get near the enemy.
>
>But one manned submarines wouldn't be able to go any faster than a normal sub.
>Due to drag and to noise restrictions.  So you don't have the same enhancment
>of your forces, as you do with airplanes.  
>
>That's what I think.
>Lewis Roberts
>

seems to fit for space combat. Small one crew ship can do 6gs and carry a
little fuel, Big, many crew ship can do 6gs and carry lots of fuel. What
advantage does the little ship have over the big one? Assume that little
ship's manuver drive is based on different technology, like wet navy vs
aircraft, and you give the little guy back his advantage. Could we place an
upper limit on what maximum displacement a thruster plate can shove around,
forcing bigger ships to use Heplar and make the little fighters scoot around
on more flexiable T-plates. 
Gives the little guy some reason to give up all that armor and extra weapons
to get a real manuverablity advantage.

Garry

 

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 23:30:31 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Templars and Solomani etymology

On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Robert Flammang wrote:

>    About the Hospitallers:
> 
>    There have been scads of orders of Hospitallers over the centuries,
>    the most prominent, by far, being various orders of Augustinians,
>    Dominicans, and Franciscans, who still run many hospitals all over
>    the world.  The important military order, "the Knights of St. John of
>    Jerusalem, of Rhodes, and of Malta", was founded in Jerusalem before
>    the first crusade and still exists today, and (like the Templars) is
>    considered a sovereign nation.  Historically, they differed from the
>    Templars by admitting women into their order and allowing Jews to
>    hold high-ranking staff and medical positions; they were also rather
>    less militaristic, leaving some of the fighting to the Templars, to
>    Russia, and to Austria.  Because they weren't so well armed, they
>    were less likely to frighten the local monarchs, and so fared better
>    than the Templars after the crusades ended.  The hospitallers
>    concentrated on helping pilgrims via hospitals and shelters, whereas
>    the Templars put more effort into providing escorts on the road.

The point about "less militaristic" can you give a date?  SInce the
Hospitaliers have a history of nearly a 1000 years, i think its important
to give a date.  From there times in Rhodes to the Battle of Lepanto, the
Hospitaliers were the most feared christian seamen/warriors in europe.

I dont know how many accounts ive read of single galleys (generally
housing 27 Knights) taking on and defeating 3 or more Moslem galleys. Each
moslem galley contained aproxiametely 100 Mean-at-arms. 

The highest count i have ever heard was of a british knight who with one
galley, and 3 previously captured moslem galleys, intercepted and
destroyed or captured a moslem pirate fleet heading for italy of 17
vessels.  He returned to rhodes with a fleet of 13 ships.

[snip]
>    nobles.  (Although in both orders, the highest officers were appointed by
>    the pope.)
> 

This is not so for the Hospitaliers.  The order had seven langues, each
langue had a Master Knight who sat on the council, the Council would vote
for the Grandmaster of the Order.  The Grandmaster served in the position
his entire life.






The closest a person ever comes to perfection is when they fill out a job application form
 Stanley J. Randall

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 97 20:44:44 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: Re: Much Ado About Starship Design

In a message dated 1997-04-02 13:01, Merrick Burkhardt wrote:

>The problem is that 30,000km is GEO for earth, and LEO is closer to
>300km.

I was just trying to stay true to what was published in CSC. Unless we 
treat what Marc does as official errata to that book! ;-x I had a heck of 
a time coming up with uncombersome names for the inserted range bands...

>> Keeping ranges for far orbit/satellite in divisions of light-seconds
>> would be an advantage for an advanced space combat system ala Mayday or
>> Brilliant Lances/Battle Rider, where 1 hex = 1 light-second.
> 
>Or a tenth of a ls.  Still, a great idea.

OOoops! My mistake! In BL/BR 1 hex does indead equal 0.1 light-second. 
Typo. As you indicate, the principle stays the same.

Thanks for your support. I hope Marc sees the advantages and incorporates 
lightspeed-based range bands in T4 deluxe. (redux?)

===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 18:57:38 -0800
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: re: submarine fighters (on topic, really)

At 01:48 PM 4/2/97 -0800, Bruce Alan Macintosh wrote:
>
>mike wrote:
>>Okay, to steer this back on topic somewhat, why don't we have small
>>submarine fighters, perhaps deployable from a attack sub or a boomer?
>>These could be small manned subs or even drones; presumably even a small
>>number of these would make normal tactics difficult for the opposing sub.
>
>For the same reason we don't have small attack speedboats carried by 
>modern large surface warships - or at least for similar reasons. Small
>"subfighters" would have no speed advantage over big submarines (as 
>indicated elsewhere, they might well have a speed disadvantage.) Sub-vs-sub
>weapons are sufficiently faster than subs or subfighters that agility
>isn't a factor in dodging them, so subfighters would be just as easy to hit.
>Sub sensors - especially good passive sensors - are *huge*; a subfighter
would
>be at a major disadvantage relative to a big sub. Effective weapons are
>also pretty big. A subfighter could use short-ranged torpedoes, perhaps - but
>it would be bigger (including the fighter) than the same amount of long-
>range torpedo, so why bother?

Despite your paragraph below, I'm going to go ahead and ask the question:
doesn't it seem like there's a pretty straightforward analogy to space
vehicles along each of the lines you mention: speed, weapon power, and
sensor capabilities?  Do small space fighters _really_ make any sense?

>Some might argue that similar reasoning would indicate that space fighters
>are of limited use compared to big warships, but let's not re-open
>that particular can of Hiver larvae.

Ewww.  That's what I was trying to do -- rather, I was hoping for some good
discussion, not (ugh) larvae in any form. :-)
- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 19:27:06 -0800
From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Interstellar Empires

>From: Michael Barry <mbarry@pcug.org.au>

>I have been wondering about how you would slice up the galaxy when

>I have a suggestion:
>Constellations. A noble house is given the rights to colonise any system

I don't think that it works astrographically.  The stars in a constellation may be very, 
very far removed from one another.  Space is three dimensional, not two, so although 
stars in a constellation may appear close together from here, they may actually be very 
far apart.

- --Glenn

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 19:34:48 -0800
From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Further further education

>From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>

>This work (C) 1997 by N.S. Munn
>
>"Ivy League" college education

[nice work deleted]

>Fencing skill as a social achievement is pure Heidelberg, but 
>fits beautifully with the Third Imperium.

I learned fencing at a Quaker "ivy" college, where I was also a German tutor.
One job interviewer, seeing these items on my resume, looked carefully at my
and asked with a straight face where my scars were.  I responded with a 
straight face that the Quaker tradition required us to wear masks when 
fighting our duels.  

- --Glenn

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1126
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Thursday, April 3 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1127



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: Submarine Fighters
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
Law School
Re: Traveller on IRC
Re: Traveller on IRC
re: submarine fighters (on topic, really)
Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed     systems)
Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: Much Ado About Starship Design
re: submarine fighters (on topic, really)
Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed     systems)
Re: Space fighters
Re: Raytrace program (off topic)
Re: Blackshoes Unite
Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed  systems)
Re: Submarine Fighters

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 20:53:48 -0700
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

At 01:40 pm 04/02/97 -0800, you wrote:
>As to the rolling of a Starship. This could open a whole can of worms.
>-Does the ship turn continously?
>-Why would it need to turn continously?
>-If the ship did turn continously, how does it lock on guns, or turn a
>damaged side to the enemy?
>
>It is my understanding that a ship turns on it's axis to bring guns/sensor
>to bear, or to turn a damaged hull away from your opponent. What would be
>the benifit to turning all the time? 


     To make it harder for somebody to grapple you?


>Even if the ship rotated a small craft with a strong flight computer and
>design could handle the stress involved in such manuevers.


     The stress ain't the whole problem, it's the relative masses. Go tie a
rope to a friend's car, hold on to the other end, and ask him to do some
donuts ....

- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:18:28 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Garry Ward wrote:

> seems to fit for space combat. Small one crew ship can do 6gs and carry a
> little fuel, Big, many crew ship can do 6gs and carry lots of fuel. What
> advantage does the little ship have over the big one? Assume that little
> ship's manuver drive is based on different technology, like wet navy vs
> aircraft, and you give the little guy back his advantage. Could we place an
> upper limit on what maximum displacement a thruster plate can shove around,
> forcing bigger ships to use Heplar and make the little fighters scoot around
> on more flexiable T-plates. 
> Gives the little guy some reason to give up all that armor and extra weapons
> to get a real manuverablity advantage.

But to make a 100,000 ton carrier perform at an upper limit of 6g
acceleration would cost a hell of a lot more than to make a small 6g
fighter.  Also, space (someone correct me if im wrong) is not a complete
vacuem, therfore larger ships face more resistence then smaller fighters.

Also, i would assume that a fighter could get to its top speed a whole lot
faster than a large ship.






Shido
CRESCENTS
A new moon's silver fin ascends the dark,
As waves engulf the crescent-bladed shark.

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 20:43:28 -0700
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

At 10:26 am 04/02/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>In a message dated 4/2/97 3:35:59 AM, Joel Connors wrote:
>
><<To throw some variables into the mix.
>
>A star fighter, or small vehicle is immensely more maneuverable that a
>Starship. >>
>
>This is not necessarily true, believe it or not. Spaceship maneuverability is
>a matter of applying Gs of thrust in different directions to affect and
>change vector, the greater the Gs that can be applied, the greater the
>maneuverability. There is no reason a large ship cannot have large enough
>drives to apply 6G, 8G, 10G or even more. This is not normally the case,

     You may be able to have more thrust in a straight direction, but I
guarantee a small fighter can apply those Gs in different directions MUCH
quicker. Centrifugal effects will either smear crews at the ends of the
large ship, or inertial effects will strain the hull, or the maneuvering
thrusters won't be able to impart enough torque, or (on and on).
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 20:46:05 -0700
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors

At 10:55 am 04/02/97 +0100, you wrote:
>>there is a distinct difference between the ship's
>>maneuver drives (responsible for thrust in the forward direction)
>>and the ship's steering jets. The latter handle any close maneuvering
>>like docking. The number and size of the jets comes from the ship's
>>agility rating and reflect the ship's ability to "jiggle" around
>>to avoid incoming shots.
>
>The attitude jets does NOT make the ship jiggle around and thus making it
>harder to hit. It changes the ships facing and thus its maneuver drives

     Actually, your attitude jet SHOULD be able to make you jiggle around. In
order for them to be able to ROTATE you properly, they should be paired,
otherwise you won't get just a rotational effect--see the diagram

   1                   2
   V                   V
   *********************
   *********************
   ^                   ^
   3                   4


     Normally, to rotate clockwise, you'd fire thrusters 2 and 3. If you fire
only one, say #2, the net effect is BOTH a clockwise torque AND a downward
force. Simple mechanics.

     If I fire thrusters 1 and 2, however, I move down. Now I set up a random
sequence of firings from paired thrusters ... you'd better be VERY careful
trying to dock, depending on the power of those thrusters.

     And even if I don't move laterally, see how you like it when I rotate my
ship like a club and smash your boarding party/vessel as they approach.
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 19:51:01 -0800
From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Law School

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 16:57:01 +0100
>From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>

>Law School
>
>The art and practice of law is somewhat different from normal
>graduate work.  As a result, dedicated law schools are common,
>dealing with both planetary and Imperial law.  

I think that this approach makes sense no matter whether we visualize a common law or 
civil law paradigm for the Imperium (I assume that the Vilani model will be analogous to 
civil law as practiced in Japan).

>Lawyers can be
>found in most Imperial services, as well as merchant organisations.

Lawyers can of course also be found working in law firms and as sole practitioners.  

>Law School (2 years)
>
>Prerequisite:   College or Ivy League graduate, or Merchant Academy
>                honours graduate

I don't see why anyone with a 4-year degree should be prohibited from applying to law 
school.  Certainly there are USNA ans USMA alumni in law school now.  Another wrinkle to 
add is sending a military officer through law school; afterwards, he or she must go into 
that branch's legal department (called in the U.S. services the Judge Advocate General 
department).  

>Admission:      6-; DM+1 if INt 9+, DM+1 if Edu A+
>Failed admiss.: No age penalty
>Perseverance:   7-; DM+1 if End 8+, DM+2 if Int 8+

I totally agree with the +DM based on End; I certainly needed it.

>Law skills:     (roll 1 per year)

>1 Research
>2 Administration
>3 Law
>4 Law
>5 Criminology
>6 Charisma

That's not a bad summary.  I'm not sure that Criminology would be available in law 
schools, but I need to check the skills list to see what it does.  

>Graduation:     On first graduation, receive LLM (Master of Laws)
>                On second graduation, licensed to practice law

You could do it that way.  In the U.S., you get a J.D. (Juris Doctor) as your first law 
degree, followed by the LL.M. as your second law degree -- but law is the only academic 
discipline to give the doctorate before the master's.  I would do it this way:

On graduation, receive law degree (type depends on law school attended and course of 
study).
To pass bar exam for bar below Imperial level, roll 9+; DM +1 if Int 9+; DM +1 if Edu 
9+; DM +1 if you took a bar review course (Cr2000)
To pass bar exam for admission to Imperial bar, roll 11+; DM+1 if Int 9+; DM +1 if Edu 
9+; DM +1 if you took a bar review course (Cr5000)

>Honours:        +1 Edu

>Law School graduates must join the Merchant service if Merchant
>Academy graduates, and if OTC/NOTC must join the Army or Navy
>respectively.  

We could then write tables for the JAG department in these services.

>Other graduates may join the Scholar, Agent or Scout
>careers. (Army, Navy and Merchant requirements are satisfied by
>their academies.)

We could also write a character generation for lawyers.  I did one for CT a million 
years ago, but doubt that I have it.  I'll try to take a crack at it soon, if anyone is 
interested. 

- --Glenn

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 22:40:26 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: Traveller on IRC

On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Suzette C. Dollar wrote:

> There will be no official Traveller Chat session on Thursday, April 
> 3, 1997.  The IG server is unavailable.

Interesting.  Did you get a response from Courtney or David yet?


- -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: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 22:43:44 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: Traveller on IRC

Oops...hit "send" before I'd finished.  Let's try that again.


On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Suzette C. Dollar wrote:

> There will be no official Traveller Chat session on Thursday, April 
> 3, 1997.  The IG server is unavailable.

Interesting.  Did you get a response from Courtney or David yet on 
when/if the server will be up again?

I will try to stop by for a while, as long as we don't discuss task 
systems, range charts, or Illuminated Traveller. <G>


- -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: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 02:04:29 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: re: submarine fighters (on topic, really)

On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Mike Sellers wrote:

> Despite your paragraph below, I'm going to go ahead and ask the question:
> doesn't it seem like there's a pretty straightforward analogy to space
> vehicles along each of the lines you mention: speed, weapon power, and
> sensor capabilities?  Do small space fighters _really_ make any sense?

They do make sense in world without
high-tech-star-trek-type-shields (unless someone can argue me out of my
opinion, which is quiet possible:), see my other post.





Basho
ON THE ROAD To NARA
Because of early spring, this nameless hill Is
knee-deep in the gauze of morning still.

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 06:42:17 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed      systems)

>To look at this the other way, which is where I started, are there good
>reasons why we don't have small manned submarine fighters?  Someone
>mentioned that it'd take most or all of the missile space in a boomer.  I'm
>not sure I agree with that, but even so, is there some reason beyond
>military tradition why we don't have the submarine equivalent of an
>aircraft carrier?

Sound problems with docking/launching operations and the already mentioned
problem with the square/cube-law ie the smaller a vehicle is the more power
per volume is required to reach the same speed given that the shape is the
same.

All this assumes the sub is supposed to be used as an archaic colw war
boomer. We Sedes have had the dubious pleasure of being visited from time
to tile by russioan minisubs that spy on our military installations.
They're launched from larger subs and after mission comleated they return
to their mothership. We have so far failed to catch any of them except the
large sub that drove up onto land some years ago to the embarassment of the
russians and even more so to our navy as this happened in a military zone
and the ones discovering the sub were some fishermen.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 06:49:09 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors

>Here's an interesting possibility: are attitude jets mounted rigidly, in
>clusters, on the hull (like the ones on the cylindrical "service module"
>of the "Apollo" spacecraft) or are they flexibly-mounted?  If attitude
>jets can be "aimed," couldn't they also be used a *weapons*, to drive off
>would-be boarders?  Presumably, the safety-interlocks that ordinarily
>prevent the jets' exhaust from scorching the ship's hull would have to be
>turned off, but that wouldn't be hard.  Boarders would have to be very
>careful to "land" on patches of hull far from the jets...
>                                                             - J. Raynor

There are no attitude jets I think but rather attitude thrusterplates
inside the hull. Or one can use gyros as was tested on the US space station
they later dropped into the atmoshere.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 06:54:08 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors

>Actually, that's not why larger ships would have lower agilities.
>There are 2 reasons why this would be true:
>
>1.  G-compensation.  Changing facing rapidly involves an angular
>acceleration.  The radial component, a, is: a = v^2/r.  a can
>rapidly far exceed the g-compensation rating of the ship with just
>little thrusters at the tips of the ship to start it spinning.
>
>2.  Crew.  If you have a single crew member at the center of
>rotation, the radial "a" term above makes little difference (since
>v = 2*Pi*r/period and period is the same regardless of the r since
>the two points on the ship are attached to each other).  As a result
>larger ships with more crew need to have crew members at various
>places around the ship which limits them to g-comp radial
>accelerations.
>
>-Merrick

All the above is true but there's a third reason that also affect the ships
max acceleration. The structure components volume in MT, T4 and GURPS is
proportional to surface area which is entirely wrong, linear would be
better but actually the structure component should be proportional to
volume^1.5 given density is fixed.
The reason for this is: Material strength is proportional to cross
sectional area while mass is proportional to volume. There it is, the
inverse square cube law that makes it harder to make large high G ships
than small high G ships. This is also the reason why you cannot build
infinitely high scyscrapers.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 21:20:56 -0700
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

joel connors wrote:
> 
> As to the rolling of a Starship. This could open a whole can of worms.
> -Does the ship turn continously?

Nope. There's no point.

> -Why would it need to turn continously?

Only when it is trying to evade a boarding attempt.

> -If the ship did turn continously, how does it lock on guns, or turn a
> damaged side to the enemy?
> 

That's a risk. However, the space combat rules I've seen (not T4 yet)
have no concept of a "side" that you can't hit. If I'm firing on
you and hit that pesky laser turret, you can't claim that it was
on the other side of the ship. There is a difference here between
"reality" and the combat rules.

> It is my understanding that a ship turns on it's axis to bring guns/sensor
> to bear, or to turn a damaged hull away from your opponent. What would be
> the benifit to turning all the time? I can think of the above two reasons
> not too.
> 

Again, I can't see any except to evade grappling attempts.

> >> How low a signature does a Grav craft have, how low if it is stealthed?
> ><Erwin>
> >Irrelevant, if you're in visual range.
> 
> I disagree, even in todays modern air and navel combat, you have to know
> where an enemy is before looking with your naked eye.
> The AWAC will tell you there is a target in bound at 9 o'clock. Only now do
> you have a referance to look for it visually. Even then it will be your
> copilot doing the looking while you fly the plane.
> 
Yes. In MT, you automatically have a sensor lock on anything in 
visual range. This means that the sensors have already pinpointed it
for you. You need only look out the window in the direction the
sensors are indicating and you'll see it.


- -- 
Erwin Fritz
Unix/NT/LAN Guy
Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd.
http://www.glja.com

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 07:11:23 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Much Ado About Starship Design

>I don't like the lable placement, however.  I'd say:
>
>6  subregional          10km
>7  regional             30
>8  subcont./low orbital 300
>9  cont./orbital        3,000

Here's a quiz: Why should subregional be 10 km. Shouldn't ALL ranges fit
this scheme? Because it's already published or what?


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 07:15:22 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: re: submarine fighters (on topic, really)

>Some might argue that similar reasoning would indicate that space fighters
>are of limited use compared to big warships, but let's not re-open
>that particular can of Hiver larvae.
>
>Bruce

Lets do!
One reason for fighters in space is that they can get much closer to the
enemy without being detected and also they can carry sensors and scout
ahead of the expensive spinal ships.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 07:18:39 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed      systems)

>If that's pretty much people's thinking, then I have another question...
>one other advantage that airplanes have over surface craft is that they can
>move in 3 dimensions instead of just 2 (plus their speed, agility, etc.).
>So to extend this to space combat, has anyone ever thought of creating a
>small micro-jump drive (TL16+) that enables a _small_ mass (<50 tons say)
>to micro-jump to another location within about 0.1 light-second distance
>virtually instantaneously, and much closer to a gravitational mass than is
>normally possible for jump drives?  The image of a huge battle rider
>surrounded by small fighters blinking in and out to avoid return fire,
>etc., is pretty cool I think.  What do you all think of this?

Well they still have to stay in hyperspace 1 week


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 07:08:23 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Space fighters

>This fighter/submarine discussion has made me wonder why every fighter
>design in Traveller is either AF or SL. Unstreamlined hull materials take
>less volume, is lighter and cost less. And because there are used from
>other ships or space stations to fight starships there are no reason for
>them to enter atmospheres, COACC has own special ships for that. Fighters
>do not hide in to gas giants to ambush other ships re-fueling there, it is
>work for SDBs. Because fighters enemies are usually bigger ships, there
>need every edge they can get. And extra weight and lost volume don't help.
>Are there any reasons I haven't thought?
>
>Jyrki Paajanen

The reason I think is for the fighters to match the artist illustration
(invariably space fighters look like US Fighterplanes, the exception being
one of the Alien modules where they used a Swedish Viggen but erased the
fin. The worst one was in an earlier Challenge where they used a F-15
without wings exactly ;)

Fighters should be spherical for best turning (attitude) ability and also
as you don't know from where you'll be hit might as well have equal armor
all round.

>Attachment converted: Min 1 giggare:WINMAIL.DAT (????/----) (0002C150)

Can those poor suckers running Winmail PLEASE turn off these pesky
attachments. I'm shure this has been covered before but it is very
irritating.
Anology: You communicate through snailmail on Traveller and some letter
writers always cover their letters in snot or similar because they're to
lazy to blow their noses.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 22:15:58 -0800
From: "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Raytrace program (off topic)

>This may be off topic, but please bear with me. I look for a easy to
>use shareware raytrace program for win95, in the purpose to draw
>Traveller ships.
>
>Please send me an email with your suggestions, and why I ought to
>select that particular program.

How about POVray?  I've no idea what is available for editors now day's, I
havn't played with it for about four years.  Back then there was a fairly
good one, so I would assume there ought to be one or two editors that are
usable.
Of course this was all DOS based back then.  Back then the output was
really good, but it might take days to render an image.  I've no idea how
it compares now.

Personally I'd recommend getting a commercial package, but then they tend
to cost big bucks.  I'm using Infini-D on the Mac, but it's also available
for Win95.

               Zane


| Zane H. Healy                    | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh@ix.netcom.com (primary)  | Linux Enthusiast          |
| healyzh@holonet.net (alternate)  | Mac Programmer            |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------+
| For Empire of the Petal Throne, and Traveller Role Playing   |
| see http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/                      |

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 22:20:46 -0800
From: "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Blackshoes Unite

><snip...>
>>I can see that the "blackshoe" (i.e. old and out of date) Navy is still
>>smarting from the fact that they have been reduced to just escorting the
>>new AIR POWER elements. ;-)
>>
>>As an ex "brownshoe" (i.e. new and more effective) I just wanted to set
>>the record straight.
>
>How very strange!  Back when I was in the army, we referred to the
>brownshoes as the oldtimers and the blackshoes as the newbies!

In the Navy it's because the Airdales don't know how to put together a
proper uniform.  Something about being afraid of black streaks on their
precious aircraft.  These aircraft, based on how clean a flightdeck has to
be, would probably crash if they had to use a normal runway.

               Zane (ex blackshoe)

| Zane H. Healy                    | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh@ix.netcom.com (primary)  | Linux Enthusiast          |
| healyzh@holonet.net (alternate)  | Mac Programmer            |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------+
| For Empire of the Petal Throne, and Traveller Role Playing   |
| see http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/                      |

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 22:28:49 -0800
From: "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed  systems)

>On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Mike Sellers wrote:
>
>> If that's pretty much people's thinking, then I have another question...
>> one other advantage that airplanes have over surface craft is that they can
>> move in 3 dimensions instead of just 2 (plus their speed, agility, etc.).
>> So to extend this to space combat, has anyone ever thought of creating a
>> small micro-jump drive (TL16+) that enables a _small_ mass (<50 tons say)
>> to micro-jump to another location within about 0.1 light-second distance
>> virtually instantaneously, and much closer to a gravitational mass than is

Um, wouldn't this still take a weeks time in jump space?

>> normally possible for jump drives?  The image of a huge battle rider
>> surrounded by small fighters blinking in and out to avoid return fire,
>> etc., is pretty cool I think.  What do you all think of this?

This same trick was used in a series of six books that came out about 1980.
The series was called "Flash Gordon", but aside from the names of the main
three characters had nothing to do with Flash Gordon.  They got their hands
on this Huge Dreadnaught type ship that kept poping in and out of the
battle wreaking havoc!  It's actually a good series, and is a favorite of
mine.

               Zane


| Zane H. Healy                    | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh@ix.netcom.com (primary)  | Linux Enthusiast          |
| healyzh@holonet.net (alternate)  | Mac Programmer            |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------+
| For Empire of the Petal Throne, and Traveller Role Playing   |
| see http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/                      |

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 08:28:00 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

On Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:18:28 +1000 (EST), you wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Garry Ward wrote:
>=20
> > seems to fit for space combat. Small one crew ship can do 6gs and =
carry a
> > little fuel, Big, many crew ship can do 6gs and carry lots of fuel. =
What
> > advantage does the little ship have over the big one? Assume that =
little
> > ship's manuver drive is based on different technology, like wet navy =
vs
> > aircraft, and you give the little guy back his advantage. Could we =
place an
> > upper limit on what maximum displacement a thruster plate can shove =
around,
> > forcing bigger ships to use Heplar and make the little fighters scoot=
 around
> > on more flexiable T-plates.=20
> > Gives the little guy some reason to give up all that armor and extra =
weapons
> > to get a real manuverablity advantage.
>=20
> But to make a 100,000 ton carrier perform at an upper limit of 6g
> acceleration would cost a hell of a lot more than to make a small 6g
> fighter.

Yes, but to make the comparison fair, you really must compare one
100,000t ship to two-thousand 50t fighters (ie: 50t x 2,000=3D100,000t).
The total cost for all those small 6G maneuver drives is about the
same as a single 6G maneuver drive aboard a lone vessel, as per QSDS.

> Also, space (someone correct me if im wrong) is not a complete
> vacuem, therfore larger ships face more resistence then smaller =
fighters.

By an *inconsequential* amount.  Were talking one or two molecules of
hydrogen per cubic centimetre... not nearly enough to cause any
noticeable deceleration in the time frame of such a scenario (or
probably even the lifetime of the ship :)

> Also, i would assume that a fighter could get to its top speed a whole =
lot
> faster than a large ship.

There is no "top speed" in a vacuum, until you reach relativistic
velocities, since there is no drag involved (see above).

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1127
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Thursday, April 3 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1128



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Interstellar Empires
Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)
Re: Submarine Fighters
Re: submarine fighters 
Subs and Spacecraft
Law School
Re: Hivers
Re: Blackshoes Unite
Re: Hivers
Re: RoM
Re: Traveller on IRC
Re: Submarine fighters
Re: Law School
2 questions about QSDS
Re: Submarine Fighters
Fighters and Boarding actions
re: submarine fighters (on topic, really)
Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed  systems)

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 18:29:36 +1000 (EST)
From: Michael Barry <mbarry@pcug.org.au>
Subject: Re: Interstellar Empires

**************************************************************************
Michael Barry
mbarry@pcug.org.au               <--- checked daily
**************************************************************************

On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Erik Yocum wrote:
> For space that's not occupied, this system sounds good.
> 
> However; remember Canon.  The Rule of Man was the Second Empire, it

Sigh. I'm never allowed to forget it...Unfortunately, 'canon' also gives 
us a 2-dimensional galaxy. There are a hell of a lot more stars within a 
few dozen parsecs than my Traveller map of the Solomani Rim suggests.  
> 
> For brand new, just starting out space going states, they'll come up with
> whatever mapping system they want to devise, like yours.  Although,
> wouldn't a constellation system be unwieldy, given that the different
> stars making up the constellation are at wildly different distances from
> Earth?

Yes, some of the other TMLers have made the same point. This is what I 
tried to bring in with discussion of the 'value' of various 
constellations, eg Centaurus being valuable, others less so. And a 
'constellation' would not be limited to only the stars 
generally considered to belong, but other odd stars adjacent. 
The idea is to carve up the *entire galaxy* after all, not just some 
parts of it. Think about the Portugese and the Spanish - they divided the 
world in half, just chopped it right down the middle. 
The concept is of allotting 'wedges' of space to various 
exploration/exploitation interests; these wedges are probably best marked 
off as constellations. Of course, the 'owners' are then going to 
subdivide their own territory and flog off the useless bits...

> 
> To answer your other question, I'm always interested in historical
> discussions.....

Great! Let's do lunch or whatever passes for lunch on the TML. 
MB

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 09:16:14 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)

On Wed, 02 Apr 1997 13:25:02 -0800, you wrote:

> If that's pretty much people's thinking, then I have another =
question...
> one other advantage that airplanes have over surface craft is that they=
 can
> move in 3 dimensions instead of just 2 (plus their speed, agility, =
etc.).
> So to extend this to space combat, has anyone ever thought of creating =
a
> small micro-jump drive (TL16+) that enables a _small_ mass (<50 tons =
say)
> to micro-jump to another location within about 0.1 light-second =
distance
> virtually instantaneously, and much closer to a gravitational mass than=
 is
> normally possible for jump drives?  The image of a huge battle rider
> surrounded by small fighters blinking in and out to avoid return fire,
> etc., is pretty cool I think.  What do you all think of this?

Sure, go ahead.  I hope the battle is still raging when you pop back
out into normal space a week later :)

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 09:11:39 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

On Thu, 3 Apr 1997 22:58:27 +1000 (EST), you wrote:

> The only reason you wouldnt have Fighters in space is because of =
shields.
> Shields can keep the little pee shooters away long enougth for each one=
 to
> be targeted and destryoed, thats why fighters dont exist in the Star =
Trek
> world.  The smallest effective fighting ship was the Klingon Bird Of =
Prey,
> and it would take 3 or 4 to evenly match the old Enterprise.

Depends on the universe.  Star Fleet Battles has had fighters since
its original version about fifteen years ago and they used shields :)

> Now, in the REAL world (or a world like Traveller which is realistic  =
enougth)
> The Fighter is a Highly effective strike weapon.  They can out maneuver
> any large frontline ship, they can zoom in and target important systems

It's kinda hard to "zoom in and target important systems" in the
Traveller universe.  Since you are dealing with weapons that target
and engage at the speed of light, anything within a light second is
subject to being destroyed with remarkable ease.

> (engines, gun bays, the bridge) and if you have enougth of them, no =
ship,
> no matter how much ant-aircraft they have, will be able to cope.

To get that close, you would probably have to overwhelm the target
with *more* fighter tonnage than that of the target.  It would then be
unfair to compare 40 50t fighters to a lone 1,000t escort, either in
cost or combat effectiveness.

Capital ships don't just defend with offensive weaponry (ie: point
defence laser fire you consider anti-aircraft).  Active and passive
defences such as sandcasters and screens are also at their disposal--
defences that fighters usually lack.  Larger ships are also usually
more heavily armoured, with redundant back-ups.  The Frozen Watch can
also be used to quickly replace losses on a capital ship, while a
fighter without a pilot is pretty much out of the combat.

Additionally, it is hard to find pilots willing to go into a situation
where there is an extremely high likelihood of them being killed.  By
overwhelming the target, you are doing so knowing that many of your
pilots won't be coming back.  With both sides being *equally matched*,
morale is probably higher on the capital ship.

> Add to this the fact that each fighter has Canons and, maybe even bombs
> which it can hit the vessel with.  Remember, there are no shields, so =
each
> bullet/laser/bomb does as much damage as if they came from an equally
> large vessel.  Multiply this power by 50 times, or a hundred times (1 =
for
> each fighter) and you have an effective, nigh, invincible weapon.  The
> only defense is, you guessed it, fighters.

You seem to be forgetting that a large capital ship could have about
50 times (or 100 times) as many weapons as a single fighter, levelling
the playing field once again (well, maybe not perfectly level :)

My arguments is based on combat between fighters and capital ships,
where the total tonnage (or cost) on either side is the same.  If you
want to compare huge hoards of fighters fighting lone targets, you
could just as easily replace the fighters with a lesser number of
smaller ships.  If they out-mass their opponent, they probably will
win.



James W. Lindsay    Vancouver, British Columbia

"Ack! Icky plptht TAZ grunga yeek... PLPTHT!!!"
                             -Tasmanian Devil

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 09:30:56 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: submarine fighters 

On Wed, 2 Apr 1997 19:34:14 -0400, you wrote:

> "When World War II clsoed, the Japanese thought they had sunk some 40
> Allied ships, including a British cruiser of the Leander class, through
> their kaiten effort.  A check of all available respources reveals they =
sank
> only two U.S. Navy ships, the tanker Mississinewa...and the destroyer
> Underhill.  This ship was actually sunk by friendly (allied) forces on =
July
> 24, 1945, after being hit by a kaiten.  Only one U.S. merchant ship, SS
> Canada Victory, was the victim of a kaiten, going down on April 27, =
1945.
> These three vessels, measured against the eight (regular) submarines =
(lost
> deploying or testing the kaiten) and nearly 900 Japanese lives lost in =
the
> kaiten program, make the enemy's sacrifice seem fruitless."

Actually, the entire Japanese use of submarines was quite ineffective =
when
viewed by the Allies.  The Japanese, culturally bound to codes of honour,
never fired on Allied merchant vessels (at least until after the war =
turned
decisively against them).  The Allies didn't seem to have a problem with
this, however :)

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:22:32 +0100
From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Subs and Spacecraft

WW2 minisubs: the British had 2-man mini-subs, which I think were 
transportation for scuba-equipped divers as much as anything else.  
They made a real mess of the Italian navy on one occasion; perhaps 
the subs were a self-propelled explosive charge placed by the divers. 
I think this was at Taranto in 1941-2, but I could be very wrong.  
This argues for a Traveller minisub as being a manned stealth 
missile, which is an expensive alternative to a remote-controlled 
torpedo.

Space fighters: these do suffer from the same problems as mini-subs 
would in at least one respect, namely sensors.  I played with QSDS to 
see what a TL11 100-ton fighter would be like, and the answer was 
"expensive or blind" (roughly speaking).  Military grade sensors 
are too expensive and too big for 100 T_d ships, and hence for 
smaller ones at TL 11-12.  Thus, tight-beam commo from a 
fighter-control ship is needed, which is much easier than sub to sub 
communication but still a hassle.  Or you just have to let the 
fighters go, and wait for the radio to be jammed.

Spaceship physics: I once did some calculations on ship shape and 
size and how they would affect maneuverability (i.e. rate of change 
of orientation).  All things being equal, a needle design can turn 
faster for a given thrust, because it can place the thrusters further 
apart and thus generate a higher torque than e.g. a sphere.  This
effect is improved when the denser ship components are placed near 
the ship's centre of mass, shifting fuel and accommodation to the 
fringes of the ship (less dense).  Teardrop-shaped ships worked quite 
well, as I recall.  I think it also reduces the centrifugal force on 
the crew to have them nearer the centre of mass; correct me if I'm 
wrong. (Need I ask on TML?)

Dave Golden writes:

> You may be able to have more thrust in a straight direction, but I
> guarantee a small fighter can apply those Gs in different directions
> MUCH quicker. Centrifugal effects will either smear crews at the ends
> of the large ship, or inertial effects will strain the hull, or the
> maneuvering thrusters won't be able to impart enough torque, or 
> (on and on).

This is substantially correct, although I should point out that 
larger ships need proportionally less thrust per m^3 to rotate at a 
given angular velocity than small ones.  Quite what the effect of 
inertial compensation would be on the centrifugal effect problem I'm 
not sure, but it might well alleviate it for all but the largest 
ships.  (And since the G-compensation threshold increases with TL, so 
does the size of the largest agile warship.  Sylean TL 11-12 had 90 
kton battleships; late 3rd Imperium had 500 kton ships.  Hmmm.)
Have to do some more sums.

Once the T4 design formats settle down a bit, and the T4 FF&S is 
published, I might go back to some of this.  Thanks Dave for 
reminding me about centrifugal effects...

Nick

"Just because he is unhappy, it does not follow that he is in love."
(Horace Walpole, _The Castle of Otranto_)

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:55:13 +0100
From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Law School

From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <sudet@well.com>

Thanks for the kind comments, Glenn. (Especially for the Ivy League 
stuff.)  Law needed a bit more work:

>>Lawyers can be
>>found in most Imperial services, as well as merchant organisations.
>
>Lawyers can of course also be found working in law firms and as sole
>practitioners.  

I figured that many of these would be tied to planetary law, or 
otherwise underskilled for PC characters.  You're right, tho'.

>I don't see why anyone with a 4-year degree should be prohibited from
>applying to law school.  Certainly there are USNA and USMA alumni in
>law school now.  Another wrinkle to add is sending a military officer
>through law school; afterwards, he or she must go into that branch's
>legal department (called in the U.S. services the Judge Advocate
>General department).  

Simply because the current generation tables didn't allow much scope 
for a lawyer in the military.  I would expect Marine legal affairs to 
be handled by the navy, like Marine medical officers are provided by 
the navy. (That's the Imperial ones, don't ask me about the USMC.)

Off-topic a little, it's possible to do USNA to second degree (on a 
scholarship) to medical school, 'cause I know someone who has.
(There's an engineering degree associated with the gent's past, I 
believe -- I met him when he was studying chemistry with me.)
This is equivalent to Naval Academy (or college NOTC) to MA to 
Medical School, to IN Medical branch I assume.

>>Law skills:     (roll 1 per year)
>>5 Criminology

>I'm not sure that Criminology would be available in law schools, but 
>I need to check the skills list to see what it does.  

Forensics, Interrogation, Law and probably Interview or some such.  
Lawyers might well be aware of the techniques through training, IMO.

>>Graduation:     On first graduation, receive LLM (Master of Laws)
>>                On second graduation, licensed to practice law
>
>You could do it that way.  In the U.S., you get a J.D. (Juris Doctor)
>as your first law degree, followed by the LL.M. as your second law
>degree -- but law is the only academic discipline to give the
>doctorate before the master's.

In the UK, Law is available as an undergraduate degree (3 years)
plus a year's Law Practice course (LPC) to qualify as a solicitor.
Postgraduate equivalents are 2 years.  There is also a probationary 
period in service.

>  I would do it this way:
>
>On graduation, receive law degree (type depends on law school attended
>and course of study). To pass bar exam for bar below Imperial level,
>roll 9+; DM +1 if Int 9+; DM +1 if Edu 9+; DM +1 if you took a bar
>review course (Cr2000) To pass bar exam for admission to Imperial bar,
>roll 11+; DM+1 if Int 9+; DM +1 if Edu 9+; DM +1 if you took a bar
>review course (Cr5000)

>>Law School graduates must join the Merchant service if Merchant
>>Academy graduates, and if OTC/NOTC must join the Army or Navy
>>respectively.  
>
>We could then write tables for the JAG department in these services.

Sure, as a house rule.

>We could also write a character generation for lawyers.  I did one for
>CT a million years ago, but doubt that I have it.  I'll try to take a
>crack at it soon, if anyone is interested. 

I was trying to avoid creating a whole new career, but perhaps we 
need one.  Or would a general bureaucrat with Law as a possible skill 
be sufficient?  (Lawyers would be bureaucrats, just like civilian 
doctors are treated as scholars, but not all bureaucrats would be 
lawyers.)  With Imperial law so loose, and local laws so varied, I'm 
sure most lawyers would be NPCs anyway.

Nick

Dr. Nick Munn, University of Sheffield, Dept. of Information Studies
 (formerly nsm14@cus.cam.ac.uk, now N.S.Munn@shef.ac.uk)

Scientist * Freelance theologian * Traveller player and BITS member

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:53:04 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Hivers

In mail you write:

>> Intelligent "trees" has both been overdone, and pretty well shown to be
>> really unlikely. Non-mobile lifeforms don't have any *need* for
>> intelligence. And intelligence requires a lot of energy, something that
>> photosynthetic lifeforms can't easily spare.
>
> Who says they would be immobile?

If they are mobile, they won't look much like a tree....

And they *definitely* won't be getting by on photosynthesis.

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

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:45:07 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Blackshoes Unite

In mail you write:

>> From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
>
>> Contrary to all the bad SF movies (and not a few bad books), the laws
>> of physics don't allow giant insects. And once you get rid of the
>> exoskeleton, and add lungs and a "real" circulatory system, the result
>> doesn't look anything like an insect.
>  
> Gee, I seem to recall something about Insects of unsual size
> that lived here on earth in the time before man. 
> Six foot long dragon flies, etc, etc...

18 inches long. And that was a limit because nowhere in the body can be
more than one or two cm from the outside due to the way insects
breathe. 

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

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:55:07 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Hivers

In mail you write:

> On Tuesday, April 01, 1997 5:35 PM, shadow@krypton.rain.com wrote:
>> In mail you write:
>> 
>> > On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 GDWGAMES@aol.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Hmm why? why not insect?
>> 
>> Because hive like *insects* have been done to death in SF.
>
> So what?  I can brainstorm for a couple of days to come up with a
> _really_ alien race, or use something that is just as icky and alien,
> but very short on time to create: ("You see something that looks like
> a giant spider.. ah, it must be the ambassador.")

Spiders aren't insects. :-)

And "insectoid" races can be justified with some work. It's just being
lazy to make them a "hive mind". 

Herbivore descended aliens are old hat, but the K'Kree, Puppeteers, and
Fithp are all *very* deifferent races. The K'Kree are a good design
because they don't act like the stereotypical "vegetarian alien" and
they do so for good reason.

> Also, what if this insectoid race _did_  have a reasonable
> circulatory system?  Would you know it if you met one on the street
> (and didn't shoot it -- the bleeding would give it away, I suppose).

Well, it'd be built rather oddly for an insect. Because it'd need
"lungs", and a lot "blood" flowing thru various joints, the joints
would need to be a lot bigger. And the head/thorax/abdomen divisions
would need to change in some major ways. On a real insect, all that has
to go thru those are nerve fibers, and a small tube that's part of the
digestive tract. Add in the effects of the square/cube law, and it'd be
very hard to get an "insect". Spiders and scorpions are arthropods and
have a more advanced anatomy. They scale up somewhat better.

>> Intelligent "trees" has both been overdone, and pretty well shown to be
>> really unlikely. Non-mobile lifeforms don't have any *need* for
>> intelligence. And intelligence requires a lot of energy, something that
>> photosynthetic lifeforms can't easily spare.
>
> Again, the thing about aliens is that they are alien.  They might
> look like trees and use some amount of photosynthesis, but have tools
> and such.

Form follows funtion. If they are mobile, they won't look like trees.
If they are immobile, then they aren't likely to be intelligent (as in
it takes a *lot* of handwaving to justify it).

> They don't even have to be mobile... what if the entire forest you've
> just crashed your starship into is a sophont being (uses tools, fire,
> agriculture, psionics, stonework, metals, genetics, etc.  Just not
> terribly interested in spaceflight until the planet gets more
> crowded.  Take that idea, and some of Niven's Stage Trees....)

*How* do it "use" these things. And how could an immobile intelligence
evolve? Untill it got *very* intelligent, it'd be nothing but a drain
on the resources, returning nothing. For a *mobile* lifeform you can
justify *incremental* growth of intelligence, as it does something
useful at every stage.

> Why does all life have to be based on our chemistry; to some methane 
> breather race out there we should all be nothing more than oxidized 
> compounds -- 'gentlepods, life using oxygen is unlikely because of the 
> temperatures that it would have to endure'

It doesn't. But it *does* have to live on planets made of the elements
available. That kills a lot of the alternatives right there. Chlorine
and fluorine may be as active as oxygen (if not more so!) but they
aren't common enough to base a planetary ecology on unless it's a
*very* exceptional planet (as in maybe one in all of the "known space"
map. This is due to the laws of physics and chemistry. 

So even if such a planet evolved intelligent life, they'd find a galaxy
*far* more hostile than what we see. Think of how we would look at the
stars and star travel if it was a virtual certainty that there couldn't
be more than a dozen worlds that *might* be terraformable in the entire
galaxy (ie it'd be an average of 10,000 parsecs or so between them).

And they'd have a lot harder time replenishing life support supplies
than we would even on "uninhabitable" worlds.

Methane breathers are possible, but now that we have a better idea of
just how *much* there is in Jupiter and Saturn, things don'yt look as
good as they did (*way* too much hydrogen). Neptune and Uranus still
look ok, except that its *really* cold out there, which slows things
down a lot.

In any case, we would have nothing in common with methane breathers. We
don't want the same kind of planets, heck, we don't even want the same
*temperature range*. So aside for negotiating some "rules of the road
for the occasions when we both have spaceships near each other, and
argreements about skimming for fuel on each other's planets only
scientists would be interested, and not a lot of them.

My basic goal is to not have someone be able to punch a hole in my
alien/planet/whatever design just because I overlooked something about
the way the universe works.

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

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 12:38:36 -0800
From: Neil Simpson <catwalk@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: RoM

Ethan Henry wrote:
> > PS am I the only TMLer with any interest in the Rule of Man (ROM)? I
> > realise this sort of places me a long way from any support in the Milieu
> > Zero vs. Classic Traveller vs. New Era bunfight...   ;]
> 
> Not at all! I'd love to write up tons of stuff about the RoM...I think
> it would be the most appealing environment to game in, for lots of reasons!
> (I'm at work though, so I can't expond on it right now...)
> 
> Anyways, Michael and anyone else interested in the Rule of Man, we should
> talk...Count me in on the ROM talks.

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 06:16:54 +0000
From: "Suzette C. Dollar" <suzd@pop.goodnet.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller on IRC

The IG IRC server is down for Maintenance.  I will let everyone know 
when it is back up.

Suz 

Suzette C. Dollar
#traveller Channel Manager
suzd@goodnet.com

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 06:47:22 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: Submarine fighters

Paul D. Owensby wrote:

>
>>The environment is just *too* different. You can't draw many (if any)
>>useful analogies between space and submarines.
>
>1) Self-contained life-support habitats
>2) Environments very hostile to human life
>3) Large, expensive vessels requiring regular maintenance and
>specialized skills to keep in prime shape
>4) Communication problems/lags require a high degree of
>autonomy
>5) Both operate in a 3-D environment (though Traveller less so <g>)
>6) Both conduct combat at non-visual ranges (if the Captains are
>smart) and nearly entirely via sensors of some sort
>
>And that's what I can come up with just off the top of my head...


     OTOH subs operate in water, which seriously affect their sensor
capabilities, and provides serious constraints on their 3d range of motion
and construction requirements due to pressure...  in space, you've got
nice, thin, transparent vacuum.

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 08:25:37 -0500 (EST)
From: "Joseph M. Saul" <jmsaul@us.itd.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Law School

>You could do it that way.  In the U.S., you get a J.D. (Juris Doctor) as your
>first law degree, followed by the LL.M. as your second law degree -- but law
>is the only academic discipline to give the doctorate before the master's.

It's also a three-year program, as opposed to the two years in the proposal.

And do you actually know any American nationals who have gotten an LL.M.
since, say, 1950?  The LL.M. thing appears to be a holdover from when the law
degree was an LL.B.  Then law schools decided that wasn't prestigious enough,
and renamed the basic law degree a J.D.  Now, the only people who get LL.M.s --
at least here at Michigan -- are foreign attorneys who take a one-year program
so they know US law as well.  (Looking through our faculty list, the only
LL.M.s appear to be emeriti, the oldest of the American profs, and foreign
nationals.)

I agree with the Endurance DM, too.  Might add an "Honors"-type option called
"Law Review;" no skill benefit, and it pushes the End requirement up by one.

Joe Saul
3L, Michigan Law School
Contributing Editor, Mich.L.Rev. Vol. 94
jmsaul@umich.edu

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 15:35:46 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
Subject: 2 questions about QSDS

Actually it is one question about QSDS and one about SSDS.

QSDS question :

As I do not like the thruster plates I always use HEPlaR drives
on my ships, but the fuel consumption in the QSDS seems broken.
I seem to remember that a 600 dton 2G ship with 40G-hours (thats
20 hours of continual use of the drive) needed more than the 
ca. 175 cubic meter liq.hyd. (12.5*14) given in QSDS.

Am I right?


SSDS question :

Since I needed a 600dton hull with large armor value I designed
the hull using an old version of SSDS I got from the TML-list.
The values seems okay so thats no problem, put I have a question
about the armor value. I gave the hull an armor value of 250 (I 
think this is the FF&S value). To convert this to T4-values one 
uses the conversion chart which give 7 and multiplies this by 
10. Right?


Tommy Grav
Institute of Astrophysics
University in Oslo
Norway

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 09:01:31 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

In a message dated 4/3/97 4:26:10 AM, you wrote:

<<why do we think we might have small space fighters?>>

Small space fighters have none of the disadvantages small sub fighters do.

They can be made to be much faster then the carriers, their signature is much
smaller (rather then being noisier as in subs), and they can actually mount
weapons that would make a difference.

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 09:22:00 -0500
From: Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org>
Subject: Fighters and Boarding actions

<ROLEPLAY ON>

Nice to see that many people out there in TML land understand the tactical 
advantages of fighter swarms against large ships.  Indeed, i have seen many 
a stout frigate and destroyer come down to its knees because it was dogpiled 
on by fighter swarms.  This si why Cleon build the bloody things!  You don't 
become emperor by beging an enept tactician!  I just wish now Zhuhansu 
Industries could miniturize the j-drives so that we could jump the lil guys 
to the target, till then I guess we just have to rely on Assault Scouts and 
Fighter Carriers.

Fighters are wonderfull, but there's maybe 2 things to defend yourself with 
against fighters, more fighters(your own of course) and point defence 
systems like the ever so loved sandcaster, ever see a fighter do a 6G turn 
into a cloud of sand?  Its not pretty.  Tends to bung up the sensor arays 
and the optics on the laser, if not frag the thing, mind you fighters are 
rather tough.

They Boys in X-TEK r&d have come up with some new PD systems, basicaly we 
taken tank weapons and put them on a ship mount, range is limmited to 
Boarding (hex 0 or Point blank) but when fighters get that close....heh....

Also I've noticed a major thread on boarding actions, a lot of you are 
discussing what to do if the ship is moving and evading.  I wouldnt worry 
too much 'bout that.  If the pilots worth his salt he can compensate, if the 
gunner is worth his salt he'd knock out the danged drives.  What the little 
boarding launch should worry about is those danged point defence systems i 
mentioned ealier.  What are you poeple doing?  Launching your away team in 
the midst of combat?  Are ye daft?  The Imperial NAvy put a lot of time and 
lives into creating a wonderful system of dealing with pirates, smugglers 
and just plain scum.  Knock out the drives, blow off the weapon systems, 
inclunding the sandcasters, THEN launch the boarding team.  By that time the 
ship will have no defensive capability and will be drifiting.  Don't wory 
about degrading your 'prize'.  The engineering crew can repair the systems 
later.

While your at it, might want to disable the j-dirve too, I've seen despirate 
scum punch the j-drive right as the boarding team latched on to the hull. 
 That was NOT a plesant site to behold.

Just some stuff to think about
From the Commander at the Office
(Pay no attention to that man behind the Black Curtain...
It's probably only Lucanus of Borg)

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 07:06:45 -0800
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: re: submarine fighters (on topic, really)

At 07:15 AM 4/3/97 +0100, Anders Backman wrote:
>One reason for fighters in space is that they can get much closer to the
>enemy without being detected and also they can carry sensors and scout
>ahead of the expensive spinal ships.

Okaaaay, but then why isn't this true in submarine warfare?  688s and
boomers are expensive, so why not lead with small stealthed mini-subs
towing passive arrays, for example?  These could put out a wide sensor net
and/or deliver decoys, mines, or torpedos from many different locations.
This would seem to greatly enhance the sensing capabilities of the big sub,
increase its effective offensive capabilities, and make detection of the
big sub almost impossible.

Again, the logic seems to hold for both subs and space -- and yet no one
has in fact done this for subs.  So is it really reasonable to say this
would be done for space?  

- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 07:06:49 -0800
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed  systems)

At 07:18 AM 4/3/97 +0100, Anders Backman wrote:
>>If that's pretty much people's thinking, then I have another question...
>>one other advantage that airplanes have over surface craft is that they can
>>move in 3 dimensions instead of just 2 (plus their speed, agility, etc.).
>>So to extend this to space combat, has anyone ever thought of creating a
>>small micro-jump drive (TL16+) that enables a _small_ mass (<50 tons say)
>>to micro-jump to another location within about 0.1 light-second distance
>>virtually instantaneously, and much closer to a gravitational mass than is
>>normally possible for jump drives?  The image of a huge battle rider
>>surrounded by small fighters blinking in and out to avoid return fire,
>>etc., is pretty cool I think.  What do you all think of this?
>
>Well they still have to stay in hyperspace 1 week

No, notice I said this micro-jump was almost instantaneous (also TL 16+,
limited to small masses, and limited in how much real space it can
traverse).  I'm positing this for game-play purposes; I can hand-wave about
surfing the first weave of hyperspace (as opposed to diving into it) later. :)



- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1128
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Thursday, April 3 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1129



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: APRIL THUDDD Announcement
Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed   systems)
Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
canned Hiver larvae and space fighters
Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: Submarine Fighters
Re: re: submarine fighters (on topic, really)
Re: Submarine Fighters
Re: Hospitalers
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
HIWG list outage
Re: LAG and Friendly Fire

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 10:24:50 -0500
From: "Chris Cox" <chriscox@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: APRIL THUDDD Announcement

Paul Walker <tiger@goldinc.com> wrote regarging requirements fot the patrol
cruiser:

> # Must be able to work in conjunction with larger fleet actions.
> 
> # Required Minimums:
>       Jump:  2                     Maneuver:  2

I would think that think that in order to work with larger fleets the patrol
cruiser would need to be capable of Jump 3 at TL-12.  With Jump 3 being one
of the big advantages for Cleon's Imperium I would imagine that most of the
new Imperial Navy's ships would be Jump 3.  BTW Tech level or Milieu wasn't
mention, is it the same old Milieu 0, Tech Level 12?

Chris Cox
(chriscox2ix.netcom.com)
The Draconis Cluster Traveller pages
(http://users.aol.com/yanbeck/trav.htm)

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 07:21:41 -0800
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed   systems)

At 06:23 PM 4/2/97 -0800, Zane H. Healy wrote:
>Here is another reason.  Cost.  Any idea what a sub cost's compared to an
>SH-60B or two?  Neither do I, but the choppers are cheaper by quite a lot.
>In fact a Oliver Hazard Perry, which can hold 2 SH-60B's (3 if you left one
>on deck), and is an ASW platform itself is considerably cheaper than a
>Submarine.  That being said, the OHP might get the sub, but my money would
>be on the sub.  But if you replace the frigate and helicopters with a
>squadron of S-3B's launched from a carrier....

Okay, but by analogy, ASW helos are effectively operating from hyperspace
(now _there's_ a neat TL16+ trick: have ships be able to control their stay
in hyperspace, and also be able to drop mines, "snorkles", etc. into 3space
when it pleases them!).

So, if you take ASW helos out of the picture, how does that change things
for sub-fighters?  Is there a space analogy for the noise problem you
mentioned wrt subs?  If not, if you could hand-wave away the noise problems
(loading/unloading done at a safe distance with all rubber parts, or
something), would that change things?

- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 10:28:04 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)

In a message dated 4/3/97 5:17:42 AM, Mike Sellers wrote:

So, what does this say about area (volume?) denial in space?  If you think
the ocean is big...

Exactly. I don't think deeps space combats would occur, or at the very least
would be EXTREMELY rare. Let's take a look at what the Navy is for:

1. Planetary defense
2. Protection of trade routes
3. Projection of power

Of course, for planets on the conquest the order might be different.

So how would you defend a whole planet?

I would say detection is the key. Lay out sensor satellites around the planet
itself, and around any gas giants in-system. There isn't really much point in
worrying abut the rest. A ship can jump in-system at any point, and that is
way to much area to cover. However, for an enemy ship or fleet to make any
use of a system it has to take a useful planet or the gas giant (fuel being
one of the most important things strategically). Thus the only area denial
needed in space is of the planets that would be primary targets anyway.

How do you protect the trade routes?

Trade ships can jump in at 100 diameters, and jump out at 100 diameters. The
options for a Navy to defend trade ships include protecting the entire 100
diameter sphere, or just parts of it. Friendlies can be more easily defended
if they are required to jump in and out at certain points, so they can be
escorted, if necessary. The rest of the space can contain picket satellites
with overlapping sensors.

How do you project power?

That's a whole manual beyond the scope of this letter.

Okay, so by hand-waving (not necessarily a bad thing), we've posited that
small space fighters are automatically faster than large space ships.
Given that, we return to the aircraft analogy for space fighters, since
their greater speed and agility makes them effective against ships of the
line.  

Not automatically faster, but in general. The absense of jump drives makes
them somewhat more cost effective, same as system defense boats.

If that's pretty much people's thinking, then I have another question...
one other advantage that airplanes have over surface craft is that they can
move in 3 dimensions instead of just 2 (plus their speed, agility, etc.).
So to extend this to space combat, has anyone ever thought of creating a
small micro-jump drive (TL16+) that enables a _small_ mass (<50 tons say)
to micro-jump to another location within about 0.1 light-second distance
virtually instantaneously, and much closer to a gravitational mass than is
normally possible for jump drives?  The image of a huge battle rider
surrounded by small fighters blinking in and out to avoid return fire,
etc., is pretty cool I think.  What do you all think of this?>>

It's a neat idea, but violates the basic tennants of Traveller Jump
technology. That is opening a whole new can of wyrms.

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 10:28:04 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

In a message dated 4/3/97 5:15:19 AM, Joel Conners wrote a bunch of stuff,
some of it is replied to here:

Erwin:
Naturally. Although, MT rules state that the maximum agility you can have is
6. This implies (although a bit unbelievable) that my Imperial Star
Destroyer, if designed with agility-6, is just as maneuverable as the TIE
fighters it launches.
However, in general fighters are more maneuverable than larger ships.


My only comment on this is that I've always despised arbitrary maximums, TNE
has no maximums, you can have a 12G ship if you want, but grav compensation
is limited by tech level and acceleration in excess of grav compensation
leads to problems for the crew.


Merrik(?):
One note, is maneuverability aside, a 5 ton craft has a lot less inertia to
move.


It may have less inertia to move, but a 6G ship is a 6G ship regardless of
it's mass. A 5 million ton ship rated at 6Gs can change its vector every bit
as quickly as a 5 ton ship rated at 6Gs. [Of course, it requires immense
amounts of thrust, and would probably turn night into day on any nearby
planets].

Joel:

As to the rolling of a Starship. This could open a whole can of worms.
- -Does the ship turn continously?
- -Why would it need to turn continously?
- -If the ship did turn continously, how does it lock on guns, or turn a
damaged side to the enemy?

It is my understanding that a ship turns on it's axis to bring guns/sensor
to bear, or to turn a damaged hull away from your opponent. What would be
the benifit to turning all the time? I can think of the above two reasons
not too.


TNE introduced the concept of ships constantly spinning on their access
during combat, the only explaination they give was to bring weapons to bear.
Other reasons could include: taking some of the load off the grav plates
(spin gravity), increasing linear stability (gyroscoping), reducing impact of
strikes by keeping surface area constantly moving (energy can't heat a moving
area as effectively, since it can't concentrate), making it more difficult to
re-target damaged areas. Also, since many ships are laid out with twin main
thrusters, rotating along the axis gives you an effectively infinite number
of thrusters, alowing changes of bearing/vector to be accomplished much more
easily in 3D space then could be accomplished if the ship is not spinning.
Attitude jets become almost unnecessary (other then to create the spin),
since a main thruster blast can be accomplished at any angle off-axis (I hope
I made this clear enough) to change bearing much more quickly then could be
accomplished with just attitude jets.

Regarding Electronic Detection:
It is my impression that electronic detection methods become very sensitive
at closer ranges, there is less clutter and less disperstion. Just look at
the electronic door openers at your supermarket, they are basically radar.

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 10:10:47 -0800
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

Erwin Fritz wrote:
> 
> joel connors wrote:
> >
> > As to the rolling of a Starship. This could open a whole can of worms.
> > -Does the ship turn continously?
> 
> Nope. There's no point.

Untrue. According to TNE rules, anyway. A ship rotates about its
aft/fore axis.

> > -Why would it need to turn continously?
> 
> Only when it is trying to evade a boarding attempt.

A ship rotates in order to bring _all_ of its guns to bear on a target.

> > -If the ship did turn continously, how does it lock on guns, or turn a
> > damaged side to the enemy?
> >
> 
> That's a risk. However, the space combat rules I've seen (not T4 yet)
> have no concept of a "side" that you can't hit. If I'm firing on
> you and hit that pesky laser turret, you can't claim that it was
> on the other side of the ship. There is a difference here between
> "reality" and the combat rules.

The reason why space combat rules (again, I'm referring to TNE rules,
since I'm more familiar with those) don't differentiate between the port
and starboard sides is *because* the ship is rotating. One has an equal
chance of hitting either side.

BTW, TNE rules take fore and aft facing into account, since the ship
spins like a football, someone "in front" has no chance of hitting the
rear.

As for turning a damaged side to the enemy, why would you want to turn
the *damaged* side *to* the enemy. I assume you meant away from the
enemy. I've always assumed the rotation to be relatively slow (1 or 2
rev's per combat round, just enough to bring all guns to bear). The
turrets are able to "swivel" themselves, in order to keep a lock on the
enemy.

Actually, that may not be right. I seem to recall something about each
weapon firing 10 times per combat round, so the rotation may be 10 rev's
per combat round. I don't have the rules in front of me. Can anyone
confirm?

TNE tried its best to model reality quite closely. (A little too closely
sometimes, I found certain rules a bit cumbersome, overwhelming and
swimming in too much detail...)

> > It is my understanding that a ship turns on it's axis to bring guns/sensor
> > to bear, or to turn a damaged hull away from your opponent. What would be
> > the benifit to turning all the time? I can think of the above two reasons
> > not too.
> >
> 
> Again, I can't see any except to evade grappling attempts.

Oh, I can think of a few more...

Again, a ship with two laser turrets on port and starboard sides (ala
Far Trader) couldn't use both to hit a ship on one side *unless* the
ship is rotating.

Another very good reason: A laser does more damage the longer it is
trained on a particular spot. (My childhood experiments with plastic
toys, sunlight, and magnifying glasses proved this) If the ship rotates,
you force an attacking laser to distribute its energy over a greater
area, thus reducing penetration and hopefully, damage.

Reason #3: I think it would be advantagous for a ship to rotate in order
to cover more area with its sensors. Wouldn't a non-rotating ship "cast
a shadow" over some sensor area? eg. an active sensor on the port side
wouldn't be able to detect a ship on the starboard side.

- -- Glenn Hoppe

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 08:55:49 -0800
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters

I will not enter a discussion about space fighters.
I will not enter a discussion about space fighters.
I will not enter a discussion about space fighters.
Oh, heck. I'll enter a discussion about space fighters

Mike sellers writes

>Despite your paragraph below, I'm going to go ahead and ask the question:
>doesn't it seem like there's a pretty straightforward analogy to space
>vehicles along each of the lines you mention: speed, weapon power, and
>sensor capabilities?  Do small space fighters _really_ make any sense?
And he's right.

someone else writes
>Now, in the REAL world (or a world like Traveller which is realistic  enougth)
>The Fighter is a Highly effective strike weapon.  They can out maneuver
>any large frontline ship, they can zoom in and target important systems
>(engines, gun bays, the bridge) and if you have enougth of them, no ship,
>no matter how much ant-aircraft they have, will be able to cope.

>Add to this the fact that each fighter has Canons and, maybe even bombs

Nothing in Traveller is more dangerous than Canon...
(sorry - little gdw-beta joke there...)

>which it can hit the vessel with.  Remember, there are no shields, so each
>bullet/laser/bomb does as much damage as if they came from an equally
>large vessel.  Multiply this power by 50 times, or a hundred times (1 for
>each fighter) and you have an effective, nigh, invincible weapon.  The
>only defense is, you guessed it, fighters.
And he's completely wrong.

Anyone who's mental image of space combat has fighters swooping along the
length of giant space dreadnaughts is completely wrong.

Let's compare 500x10-ton fighters to 1x50,000-ton battlerider 
(so that Jump drives don't get
in the way and mess things up.) The battlerider will be just as high-
acceleration as the fighters for a given amount of money spent on
maneuver drives. Since the battlerider has a much lower surface-to-volume
ratio, it will have *much* thicker armour for a given amount of mass/volume
devoted to armour. The fighters *don't* carry the same weapons as the 
battleriders, not really - to damage a heavily armoured target you need
a whopping great meson gun or PA spinal mount, which you can't fit in a 
ten-ton fighter. The fighter's weapons will bounce off the battlerider.

One might argue that the fighters are smaller, possibly more agile (since
they can rotate faster to change the angle of their thrust) and hence
harder to hit. However, such advantages only matter at moderate-to-long
ranges; at short ranges (<30,000km), no amount of agility can stop a good
closed-loop laser tracking system from hitting. A single hit from a
laser turret will destroy a fighter, so the fighters (to be effective)
have to stay at long ranges (not very exciting or heroic) plinking away
with lasers. You might as well put all the lasers on a battlerider where
you can protect them with some armour in the first place.

In the real world, aircraft won because they were orders of magnitude
faster than ships, and because they have access to weapons (torpedoes
and bombs) that have very short ranges - so ships can't use them
effectively against other ships - but do huge amounts of damage.
Neither of these are true in Traveller. Traveller fighters aren't aircraft;
they're speedboats with machine guns. Imagine attacking a dreadnaught
in a speedboat with a machine gun.

Even in the Real World, modern point defences have changed the roles of
aircraft - imagine trying to dive-bomb a modern CG; you'd be eaten
for breakfast. To have any hope of dropping an actual iron bomb on a ship
you need to come in at very low level (like in the Falklands) at an
opponent with highly inadequate point defence (like in the Falklands.)
There's no analogy to "coming in low" in space...

In Traveller, fighters are useful (a) for patrol and space control
(b) scouting, (c) attacking and defending convoys, (d) attacking light
vessels like destroyers, (e) atmospheric operations (since lasers
don't work as well in atmosphere)
(f) sometimes scrubbing the sensors off 
particularly vulnerable capital ships but will never actually beat
their weight in capital ships - they're an important part of a combined-
arms fleet but not the ultimate weapon.

In T4, fighters do have a small advantage: fusion+, which big ships can't
effectively use due to the surface area requirement. This isn't enough to
make them the ultimate weapon, but might mean that fighters are more effective
than (say) their equivalent cost in 5000-ton destroyers - I'm not sure.

Bruce

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:10:38 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors

In a message dated 4/3/97 7:26:16 AM, David J. Golden wrote:

<<Normally, to rotate clockwise, you'd fire thrusters 2 and 3. If you fire
only one, say #2, the net effect is BOTH a clockwise torque AND a downward
force. Simple mechanics.>>

You can rotate the ship all you want, and it works great if you're standing
still, but if you have any significant forward momentum, jiggling will do
nothing for evasion, since you're course is set until you burn main
thrusters.

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:11:37 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

In a message dated 4/3/97 7:19:33 AM, David J. Golden wrote:

<<You may be able to have more thrust in a straight direction, but I
guarantee a small fighter can apply those Gs in different directions MUCH
quicker. Centrifugal effects will either smear crews at the ends of the
large ship, or inertial effects will strain the hull, or the maneuvering
thrusters won't be able to impart enough torque, or (on and on).>>

I don't have any problem with that, I'm against large ships with high Gs
anyway. Although for the sake of argument, a lot of the stuff you mention is
supposed to be taken care of by Grav Compensation and such (and this is where
we are entering science FICTION).

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:10:25 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

In a message dated 4/3/97 7:19:13 AM, Solomani wrote:

<<But to make a 100,000 ton carrier perform at an upper limit of 6g
acceleration would cost a hell of a lot more than to make a small 6g
fighter.

Good point

<<Also, space (someone correct me if im wrong) is not a complete
vacuem, therfore larger ships face more resistence then smaller fighters.

It's close enough to make the resistance negligible

Also, i would assume that a fighter could get to its top speed a whole lot
faster than a large ship.>>

That's all a matter of Gs of acceleration, "top speed" in space is fairly
close to the speed of light, so there isn't any real top speed. However,
beyond certain speeds it becomes difficult to engage in space combat, since
no matter how much accleration you can manage, you're still pretty much
traveling in a straight line.

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:10:21 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: re: submarine fighters (on topic, really)

In a message dated 4/3/97 6:54:31 AM, Mike Sellers wrote:

<<Despite your paragraph below, I'm going to go ahead and ask the question:
doesn't it seem like there's a pretty straightforward analogy to space
vehicles along each of the lines you mention: speed, weapon power, and
sensor capabilities?  Do small space fighters _really_ make any sense?
>>

There is a point that we are missing on the subject. A big difference between
subs and starships is communication. Submarines basically can NOT communicate
with one another while underwater, but starships can. Space fighters also
have the advantage of being able to use tight beam laser communication (laser
and maser), thus maintaining stealth capabilities. Sensor data can be handed
off to them from the carrier group, or even from a specialized sensor
frigate. Subs cannot use anythign similar, unless maybe they were all
connected via wires, and that seems impractical at best.

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:10:21 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

In a message dated 4/3/97 7:03:44 AM, Garry wrote:

<<Big, many crew ship can do 6gs and carry lots of fuel. What
advantage does the little ship have over the big one? Assume that little
ship's manuver drive is based on different technology, like wet navy vs
aircraft, and you give the little guy back his advantage. Could we place an
upper limit on what maximum displacement a thruster plate can shove around,
forcing bigger ships to use Heplar and make the little fighters scoot around
on more flexiable T-plates. 
Gives the little guy some reason to give up all that armor and extra weapons
to get a real manuverablity advantage.>>

Try building a big ship with 6Gs, economics of scale work somewhat in
reverse. Once you get past a certain size, bridges start eating up space the
fighters don't have to worry about, the little guys don't have to worry about
jump drives (and J-drive fuel). Thus they have added room for maneuver drive,
fuel and armor and weapons. Also, to use the aircraft/space fighter analogy,
I wouldn't put anything much in the way of sensors on a fighter anyway, maybe
just some active systems. Current aircraft radar is not used in the target
search role, a larger unit, notably an AWACs or ground-based radar unit (or
the Carrier's radar, in naval deployments) aquires the target, then hands off
coordinates to the fighter. This is the same for space fighters, using the
sensor hand-off rules and tight beam (laser or maser) communications. The
fighters don't even need transmitters to receive the data.

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 12:55:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Hospitalers

   Hi, O follower of Solomon 8^).

> From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
 
> On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Zane H. Healy wrote:
 
> I only know the history of templars as it crossed paths with the
> Hospitaliers, from the little that was said in the Hospitaliers history
> they disbanded as a religious order because they had become excessively
> corrupt.  Most of there wealth was then handed over to the last remaining
> knighthood, the Hospitaliers.

   Technically, the entire Templar order was found to be heretical by a
   church court, and then all of the Templar assets were turned over by
   the church to the Hospitallers.

   [snippage: Solomani points out that the Hospitallers were very
   wealthy.]

> So, if the only reason the french king (though i was sure it was the
> spanish king, Phillip, not the french king) wanted to disband an order
> because they wanted there wealth, why didnt they disband the
> Hosipataliers?

   Two reasons: (1) The Hospitallers were popular and still had a
   mission, running hospitals. After the crusades the Templars were
   merely an extraordinarily rich mercenary band that happened to run
   some hospices. (2) The Templars were based in France, and most of
   their properties were in France, so Philip IV of France (not Spain)
   thought he had a chance of grabbing it, since the property of
   "criminals" reverts to the crown.

> Concurrently, why was most of the Templars holdings then handed over to
> the Hospitaliers?  This doesnt make sense with your supposition of "they
> wanted there wealth".
 
   Yep. In order to make the Templars unpopular in France, Philip
   "uncovered" a ritual book of obscene practices which he attributed to
   the Templars.  BIG mistake.  Although the Templars were found
   innocent in their many heresy trials throughout Europe at this time,
   Pope Clement V, in an effort to totally hose Philip, suppressed the
   order as heretical.  The property of heretics, you see, reverts to
   the church, not the crown 8^).  Then, to add insult to injury,
   Clement handed all the property over to a nearly equivalent order,
   the Hospitallers.

> Also, both orders swore allegience to the Pope, and recognised no other
> authority outside there own orginisations except for the Pope, so the king
> of france can want all he likes, its the Pope who had the final say.

   How right you are, and Clement really rubbed Philip's face in it. 
   Philip, however, produced a huge bill of alleged debts that the
   Templars' estate supposedly owed to France.  So the French courts
   managed to aquire for Philip some of the properties that the church
   was about to seize.  Most, however, went to the Hospitallers, and
   France has consitantly been hostile to the Knights Hospitaller of St.
   John ever since.

>  I think this is way off topic for the list, so i'll
> stop ranting now.

   I guess it is off-topic, but all these stranger-than-fiction true
   tales of feudal politicking give me lots of inspiration for my
   campain.  You see, one of my players is a duke!

   -Rob

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:33:39 -0700 (MST)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

 
> NOT Merrik(?):
> One note, is maneuverability aside, a 5 ton craft has a lot less inertia to
> move.
> 
> It may have less inertia to move, but a 6G ship is a 6G ship regardless of
> it's mass. A 5 million ton ship rated at 6Gs can change its vector every bit
> as quickly as a 5 ton ship rated at 6Gs. [Of course, it requires immense
> amounts of thrust, and would probably turn night into day on any nearby
> planets].

I didn't say that, it was somebody else's post, you're right
though.
 
- -Merrick

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 11:15:21 -0700
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors

MrkGrismer@aol.com wrote:
> 
> You can rotate the ship all you want, and it works great if you're standing
> still, but if you have any significant forward momentum, jiggling will do
> nothing for evasion, since you're course is set until you burn main
> thrusters.

I think there is some confusion as to what jiggling means. Here's
what I think it is.

Jiggling is a series of small accelerations in random directions over 
short periods of time. Over time, the accelerations cancel each other 
out (because they're random). Jiggling does not affect the actual 
course (direction-wise) of a ship when measured over a period of time.

Now, the combat round is 20 minutes. This is enough of a period for
the jiggling to have no effect on direction.

Jiggling is produced by the steering jets, not the maneuver drive.
The accelerations are small but are enough so that the ship is 
constantly changing its orientation.

If a pirate ship attempts to board a passenger liner, there are three
situations:

a) the passenger liner still has its maneuver drive
b) the liner's maneuver drive is disabled/off but it still has
   steering jet control (i.e. power and computer/pilot still function)
c) the liner has no power nor maneuver drive

In a) the pirate ship cannot board, period. The liner can simply 
alter its acceleration constantly so that there's no chance the pirate
can come alongside.

In b) the ship can jiggle around, making boarding attempts hazardous
if not impossible.

In c) the liner is dead meat. It is this situation that pirates try
to set up.

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 11:32:43 -0700
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

Glenn Hoppe wrote:
> 
> Erwin Fritz wrote:
> >
> > Someone else wrote:
> > >
> > > It is my understanding that a ship turns on it's axis to bring guns/sensor
> > > to bear, or to turn a damaged hull away from your opponent. What would be
> > > the benifit to turning all the time? I can think of the above two reasons
> > > not too.
> > >
> >
> > Again, I can't see any except to evade grappling attempts.
> 
> Oh, I can think of a few more...
> 
> Again, a ship with two laser turrets on port and starboard sides (ala
> Far Trader) couldn't use both to hit a ship on one side *unless* the
> ship is rotating.
> 

Yes but we're dealing with a 20 minute combat round. If I'm the
pilot of the Free Trader, I fire with the laser on the enemy side,
flip the ship and fire with the other laser. I don't need to be
_constantly_ rotating.

Now, capital ships with guns everywhere need to rotate for the reason
you give. However, it's only necessary during combat.

> Another very good reason: A laser does more damage the longer it is
> trained on a particular spot. (My childhood experiments with plastic
> toys, sunlight, and magnifying glasses proved this) If the ship rotates,
> you force an attacking laser to distribute its energy over a greater
> area, thus reducing penetration and hopefully, damage.
> 

The original question asked about rotating all the time. The above
paragraph IS a good reason to rotate, but only in combat. What about
when you're not in combat?

> Reason #3: I think it would be advantagous for a ship to rotate in order
> to cover more area with its sensors. Wouldn't a non-rotating ship "cast
> a shadow" over some sensor area? eg. an active sensor on the port side
> wouldn't be able to detect a ship on the starboard side.
> 
> -- Glenn Hoppe

The placement of sensor arrays should be done in such a manner as to
eliminate the need for this sort of thing and to reduce the size of 
the shadow. And once that shadow extends to less than 25,000 km away
from the ship, it doesn't matter anymore because any approaching ship
is automatically detected (in MT rules).

It would be very bad design to have only one sensor array per sensor
device and have that device located in a place where most of the sky
can't be seen from it.

If you make it necessary to rotate the ship to make sensors able to
see all of the sky, then the complexity of the rotation varies as the
number of sensors you have. If I have only one sensor, I can just
rotate along a single axis and that sensor will see everything. If I
have five different sensors and each one is placed far from its 
neighbors (because you wouldn't want all of your sensors taken out with
one shot, would you?), what kind of rotation "circle" must I use to
get all the sensors able to see all of the sky within a reasonable
time frame?

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 11:01:03 -0800
From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <sudet@well.com>
Subject: HIWG list outage

Per Leroy Guatney's request, I am cross-posting this message to the TML for the benefit 
of any HIWG members who may not have been on Leroy's list.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Andrew Patterson writes:
>HIWG list
>
>The power-supply on my server seems to have permanently crapped out.
>I think it is time to buy a new computer.  In the meantime, could you
>please send a message to everyone telling them that the list will be
>down for a week or so.

Given the above news, if someone has a critical message to get to the
group, I guess you can reply all to this note. I put together a quick
alias of people who have posted to the list this year. I could also
forward a note if needed.

I would appreciate it if someone on TML/XTML (or whatever it is called
these days) could cross-post in an effort to reach anyone else I may
have missed by this method.

Thank You,

Leroy Guatney
lwlg@usa.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 10:55:42 -0800
From: jdconnors@genmagic.com (joel connors)
Subject: Re: LAG and Friendly Fire

Total Snip-

The GURPS system handles missed shots very well in IMHO.

Instead of the skill roll again, or inverting, they go to the blind fire rule.

Gurps is like Traveller in that you roll under your skill. The Blind Fire
rules states "Roll under your skill with a skill cap of 9".

What this means is if you miss your target you roll again for everyone
around him. If you have a skill of 7 you roll under 7 to hit a new target.
If you have a skill of 10, 15, or even 22 you roll under 9 to hit a new target.
This rule is also used for shooting at a non visible target.

This takes skill and balances it with good old Murphy.

Best,
Joel Connors

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1129
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Thursday, April 3 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1130



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Submarine Fighters
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Experience Points?
Submarine Fighters
Grav Cities in Gas Giants
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Space combat at the strategic or grand tactical level
law school and the bar exam
Re: Fighters and Boarding actions
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters + ship thoughts(long)
Re: Experience Points?
Re: Grav Cities in Gas Giants
Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really)
Re: Interstellar Empires

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 10:57:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:18:28 +1000 (EST)
> From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
>
> But to make a 100,000 ton carrier perform at an upper limit of 6g
> acceleration would cost a hell of a lot more than to make a small 6g
> fighter.

On a per-ton basis, it costs exactly the same amount.

> Also, space (someone correct me if im wrong) is not a complete
> vacuem, therfore larger ships face more resistence then smaller fighters.

This is not true, for two reasons.  First, space is close enough to a
perfect vacuum that drag effects are utterly negligible at the velocity,
distance, object size/density, and time scales relevant to Traveller space
combat.

Second, *smaller* vessels are more affected by drag then larger ones, all
other things being equal.  Surface area goes up as the square of size, but
volume (and hence mass) as the cube; since drag depends on surface area,
and inertia on mass, small objects experience more drag deceleration than
large ones (again, all other things being equal).

> Also, i would assume that a fighter could get to its top speed a whole lot
> faster than a large ship.

Wrong.  6 gees is 6 gees.  And spacecraft have no 'top speed' in the sense
I think you're picturing.

We've all been conditioned by watching war movies and modern carrier
operations to think of big ships as being slow, and small fighters as
being much faster.  This IS NOT TRUE in space!  A 100,000 dt battleship
with 3G acceleration is *just as 'fast'* as a 10 dt fighter with 3G
acceleration.

The *only* way to make the figher more maneuverable involves arguments
about speed of rotation to bring the thruster to bear along a different
axis.  At the 20-minute-turn timescale of Traveller ship combat, this
makes absolutely no difference at all.  It might have a considerable
effect on close-in Star Wars-style dogfights, but that's not how canonical
Trav combat works; most fighting goes on over ranges on the order of a
light-second, or 300,000 km.  Being able to jink your nose around quickly
is of little use at ranges like that.

So, are fighters useful in Traveller?  Yes, possibly, but I'd argue that
drones and missles perform almost all the same roles better.  The
advantages of multiple agile/fast small craft vs. the same cumulative
tonnage of bigger ships are:

* More targets for the enemy to deal with.  One lucky shot can destroy
  a 10,000 dt destroyer; the same isn't true of 1000 10-ton fighers.

* More operational flexibility.  1000 fighters can be in a lot more
  places at once than a single 10,000 dt destroyer.

The first job is clearly better handled by drones or missiles; the second
is a wash.  You can leave a drone on station without support a lot
longer than a crewed fighter, but conversely a drone won't react as
intelligently to targets of opportunity or other unexpected events.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 11:13:12 -0800
From: jdconnors@genmagic.com (joel connors)
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

At 09:20 PM 4/2/97 -0700, you wrote:

>Yes. In MT, you automatically have a sensor lock on anything in 
>visual range. This means that the sensors have already pinpointed it
>for you. You need only look out the window in the direction the
>sensors are indicating and you'll see it.
>
>

Erwin,

Since I will freely admit to being out of the rules loop, help me out here.

Are there any provisions for "Silent Running", "Stealth", "EM Masking" etc.

Granted at a certain point rules have to be simplified, but. Is it logical
to say that if you could visually see it then your sensor know it is there?


My goal is to write a viable set of rules from performing an extremely
difficult operation. I by no means imagine that what I propose should be
easy. This kind of stunt should only be tried by the desperate, or insane
(where are those Marine Special Ops boys?) However, I think that there is an
open door that could be capitalized by an astute character. If nothing else,
the element of surprise goes to the crazy man in the grav fighter.

Best,

Joel

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 11:03:49 -0800
From: jdconnors@genmagic.com (joel connors)
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

At 08:53 PM 4/2/97 -0700, you wrote:

>>It is my understanding that a ship turns on it's axis to bring guns/sensor
>>to bear, or to turn a damaged hull away from your opponent. What would be
>>the benifit to turning all the time? 
>
>
>    To make it harder for somebody to grapple you?
>
At this point it is a question of what is more important.
- -Bring weapons to bear on a Capital Target and defending damaged hull.
- -Avoiding a possible boarder craft in the middle of battle.

I would concede that if a ship knew it was the victim of an active board,
spinning may well out weigh the lack of targeting and defense. 
However if not, then why bother?

>>Even if the ship rotated a small craft with a strong flight computer and
>>design could handle the stress involved in such manuevers.
>
>    The stress ain't the whole problem, it's the relative masses. Go tie a
>rope to a friend's car, hold on to the other end, and ask him to do some
>donuts ....

I would return with this:
The above example would translate across to a Scout Ship and a man in a
Spacesuit.

A more proper question is this:
A precision sports car throws a grapple on a flat bed truck. The Truck does
donuts. Will the Sports car be able to match speed to keep circling the
Truck, while closing the circle smaller?

Best,

Joel
>

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 14:29:20 -0500
From: Jeff Harvey <jharvey@nlci.com>
Subject: Experience Points?

Okay, it's the rookie referee again, with another question that is
obvious to most of you, but could use a little elaboration for myself.

     Is there a system for awarding experience points to players?  I guess
that I would just like to know how other referees award experience
points, and what is a relative average of experience points to award per
gaming session.  Again, any thoughts or information are appreciated.

                              Jeff

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 11:19:09 -0800
From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Submarine Fighters

>From: Lewis Roberts <lewis@chara.gsu.edu>

>
>Fighter planes are able to go much faster than their carrier.  So they can cover
>more ground, and can keep the expensive carrier away from the enemy, while
>only letting cheap (relative to a carrier) planes get near the enemy.
>
>But one manned submarines wouldn't be able to go any faster than a normal sub.
>Due to drag and to noise restrictions.  So you don't have the same enhancment
>of your forces, as you do with airplanes.

The same thing is operating in Traveller space combat.  The fastest fighter still has 
only Maneuver-6, the same as the fastest battleship.  It generally has better agility 
(under the High Guard system, anyway), but it can't accelerate any faster.  So submarine 
fighters are a good analogy for space fighters in this respect -- and that supports the 
argument that space fighters won't be an effective force in ship-to-ship actions.

I think that space fighters are more likely to be used in taking out COACC and 
supporting troops on the ground (we'll always have troops on the ground, because, no 
matter how big the heavy weapons and how advanced the technology, you aren't holding any 
piece of ground until you can keep a nineteen-year-old with a rifle on it) (I don't 
remember which founding father of Traveller I'm paraphrasing there).

- --Glenn

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 14:44:53 -0500 (EST)
From: fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin W. Cain)
Subject: Grav Cities in Gas Giants

Has anyone else on TML read Mr. Anthony's _Bio_of_a_Space_Tyrant_ series?
In this series, mankind has *numerous* grav cities floating in the
atmospheres of the gas giants of the solar system.  I find it strange that
Traveller has postulated numerous grav cities throughout the high-tech
Imperium, but not one of them floating in the upper atmosphere of a gas
giant.  Any ideas how come???

Franklin

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 11:40:44 -0800
From: jdconnors@genmagic.com (joel connors)
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

At 10:28 AM 4/3/97 -0500, you wrote:

>Regarding Electronic Detection:
>It is my impression that electronic detection methods become very sensitive
>at closer ranges, there is less clutter and less disperstion. Just look at
>the electronic door openers at your supermarket, they are basically radar.
>
 
Yes, however that same door opener cannot detect a car moving in the parking
lot.

The big Radar dish mounted on top of a plane will not see the plane six feet
under the body of the plane. I suppose you could install door openers on the
bottom of all those planes, but at a certain point defense is offset by cost.

I am again reminded of the movie Executive Decision. They cover the docking
sequence very well. As I recall great care was taken to get into the Radar
dead zone created by the aircraft.

Best,

Joel

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 11:46:19 -0800
From: jdconnors@genmagic.com (joel connors)
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

At 10:10 AM 4/3/97 -0800, you wrote:

>As for turning a damaged side to the enemy, why would you want to turn
>the *damaged* side *to* the enemy. I assume you meant away from the
>enemy. I've always assumed the rotation to be relatively slow (1 or 2
>rev's per combat round, just enough to bring all guns to bear). The
>turrets are able to "swivel" themselves, in order to keep a lock on the
>enemy.
>
>Actually, that may not be right. I seem to recall something about each
>weapon firing 10 times per combat round, so the rotation may be 10 rev's
>per combat round. I don't have the rules in front of me. Can anyone
>confirm?
>

Okay, I can concede to these reasonings. However a ship turning 2-10 times
with in 20 minutes is not a very fast operation. I fire some guns, turn the
ship fire again, do a sensor check, make sure the targets still there, fire
the guns and then rotate. 

So the rotating is not ala a space station trying to create artificial
gravity, but more the slow role a whale might perform under water.

Best,

Joel

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 11:28:54 -0800
From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Space combat at the strategic or grand tactical level

I've been following our interesting discussion of space combat at the tactical level for 
a while, and it has led me to ask about how other referees handle the level above.  
Traveller posits that interstellar communication is only as fast as the ships that 
travel from star to star.  This is analogous to the age of sail, before the advent of 
the telegraph (let alone the short-wave, or communications satellites).  

In those days, one of the major facets of naval warfare was finding the other side's 
fleet.  Small, fast, scout ships were used for that purpose, as were spies in ports.  
Nelson couldn't just ask the Admiralty's intelligence office to printout the satellite 
photos showing the location of the French fleet; his counterpart, on the other hand, 
could and did have up-to-the-minute information about the disposition of the Argentine 
fleet during the unpleasantness in the Falklands.  

Fifth Frontier War attempts to simulate this fog of war issue by requiring the fleets to 
plot their movements several turns in advance.  This probably matches the orders given 
to fleet commanders in real life, but, still, both players can see the map and actually 
know whether Jewell has fallen or not.  Other than having three maps, a referee, and two 
players with only their own forces and known enemy forces on the map, how have you 
handled this issue?  Even that is flawed, because a commander on Rhylanor won't know 
what's happened on Efate for a long time, even though the commander on Efate knows 
immediately.  Getting fifteen people together to play 5FW is a big scheduling problem; 
maybe there is computer network solution?

- --Glenn

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 11:11:55 -0800
From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <sudet@well.com>
Subject: law school and the bar exam

>From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <sudet@well.com>
>Subject: Law School
>
>
>>From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
>
>>Graduation:     On first graduation, receive LLM (Master of Laws)
>>                On second graduation, licensed to practice law
>
>You could do it that way.  In the U.S., you get a J.D. (Juris Doctor) as your first law
>degree, followed by the LL.M. as your second law degree -- but law is the only academic
>discipline to give the doctorate before the master's.  I would do it this way:
>
>On graduation, receive law degree (type depends on law school attended and course of
>study).
>To pass bar exam for bar below Imperial level, roll 9+; DM +1 if Int 9+; DM +1 if Edu
>9+; DM +1 if you took a bar review course (Cr2000)
>To pass bar exam for admission to Imperial bar, roll 11+; DM+1 if Int 9+; DM +1 if Edu
>9+; DM +1 if you took a bar review course (Cr5000)

I thought about this a little more.  The penalty for failing the bar exam is that you 
have to take it again (and that's a real penalty).  In the US, the bar exam is 
offered twice a year; maybe we make it once a year for character generation.  Passing 
the bar exam entitles you to practice law in that jurisdiction; if you don't ever pass 
it, you can never legally practice law, and that should be reflected in your career 
path.  For example, an army JAG who can't pass the bar exam might have to serve in the 
infrantry, instead.  

The main advantages of passing the Imperial bar -- which entitles you to practice before 
the Imperial Courts, which generally handle more lucrative cases (although that's not 
the legal distinction between Imperial and local courts) -- are eligibility on mustering 
out for +Soc, TAS, and, of course, more money.

- --Glenn

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 11:28:05 -0800
From: jdconnors@genmagic.com (joel connors)
Subject: Re: Fighters and Boarding actions

At 09:22 AM 4/3/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
><ROLEPLAY ON>

>
>Also I've noticed a major thread on boarding actions, a lot of you are 
>discussing what to do if the ship is moving and evading.  I wouldnt worry 
>too much 'bout that.  If the pilots worth his salt he can compensate, if the 
>gunner is worth his salt he'd knock out the danged drives.  What the little 
>boarding launch should worry about is those danged point defence systems i 
>mentioned ealier.  What are you poeple doing?  Launching your away team in 
>the midst of combat?  Are ye daft?  The Imperial NAvy put a lot of time and 
>lives into creating a wonderful system of dealing with pirates, smugglers 
>and just plain scum.  Knock out the drives, blow off the weapon systems, 
>inclunding the sandcasters, THEN launch the boarding team.  By that time the 
>ship will have no defensive capability and will be drifiting.  Don't wory 
>about degrading your 'prize'.  The engineering crew can repair the systems 
>later.

<Roleplay continue>

With all due respect to the Imperial Navy, sir! 

When fighting a Pirate Patrol Cruiser (400tons) with a Chrysanthemum Class
Destroyer (3000 tons), it is all well and good to apply the following actions.

What happens when the odds shift? Say you have four Patrol Cruiser gunning
for that Navy Can? At this point sending out the small craft to tie up the
pirates is a viable approach.

Next possibility: In a large fleet combat, say the fifth frontier war. You
have dozens of capital ships on each side with hundreds of small craft and
possibly thousands of munitions, satellites and other small objects. In this
situation, elite small craft sent out to cause as much damage as possible is
again viable.

Now, sir I'm no squid, I'm just a jarhead, so I'm not up on these concepts
of overall strategy and such. However, isn't it my job to go out into the
teeth of a battle and risk it all. If a launch with 10 marines can disable a
single starship, then it has <censor> well paid for itself. 

A last note Sir. I myself would much rather be doing something while all
them Navy can's are duking it out. Sitting in a ready room waiting for
action is not why I joined the Imperial Marines.

From the Marine in Space
Ever try and light a cigar in BattleDress?

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 11:33:26 -0800
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters + ship thoughts(long)

On Thu, 3 Apr 1997 22:58:27 +1000 (EST) Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au> wrote
>On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Mike Sellers wrote:
>> ...I think for all the
>> reasons I've heard so far as to why we don't have sub fighters, most can
>> generalize pretty well to an argument for not having small space fighters
>> too.  

The best reason is one of differing technologies.  If there is a technology
that allows a small ship to perform a certain mission better than a large
one, then the fighter can exist.

Given canon for M0, the only options are better propulsion, better power,
or better agility.

My personal design decisions were:
Small fighters can use F+ quite well.  This makes them capable of using
very small hulls.

CG is cheap, so there will be fighters within atmosphere.

Thrusters are expensive, which makes a space fighter a bit more expensive.
They can still be small.

A fighter can mount a weapon capable of punching through a civilian grade
hull pretty damn easily.

F+ needs lots of maintenance after a year or so, such that it is not a
great idea to use it on a large vessel.  Small vessels do not need
maintenance space, as they are maintained on a hanger, and thus this is
less of a problem.  (You only maintain a few at a time.)

Most pirates are not using military grade equipment.  They are toughened
enough that a civie will not usually fight, but they are going to be at
significant risk from a fighter with a good weapon.

So, the strike fighter is a great idea for attacking a soft target, like a
merchant or a pirate.  Against a battleship, it is not as good.

With my assumptions stated, I will address the points raised in previous
letters.

>> Are small space fighters believable, or have we all seen Star Wars too many
>> times?

They make sense, if there is something they can damage.  As above, I assume
they can damage soft targets.  This includes fuel shuttles, unarmored
sections of ships, thruster plates, etc.  They have a small chance of
damaging a hard target.  They also bring a sensor suite, admittedly a small
one, close to the enemy, and in my world, this is very handy.

...

>The only reason you wouldnt have Fighters in space is because of shields.

Or armor.  I rule that the large ships are capable of withstanding a few
shots by the largest weapons mountable on their class of hull, assuming
they are as tough as possible contingent on containing a weapon battery of
that class and the drives, etc. needed for that.

The square-cube law works in your favor for a large ship.  Assuming that
armor is primarily needed to cover the area of the ship, and that internal
bracing is a minor cost, a sphere twice as big has four times the area to
defend, and eight times the volume.  Thus, an 80Kt DN can have something
like twice as much armor thickness as a 10Kt vessel.

One will note, though, that armor twice as thick is not twice as good.
Greg Porter, I believe, has references that show something like a cube root
involved!

While this armor would suffice to stop a fighter cold, it means that I
cannot have my ship classes nearly as defendable.  (Quasi-modern ships get
something like n log n, as they are primarily interested in defending the
waterline.)

I hand waved at this point, and much like the gravitic focusing that makes
lasers reasonable, I decided that gravitics could degrade incoming weapons.

As an alternative, one could argue that critical systems make up a smaller
fraction of a large ship than a small one, as they have things of constant
size, or whose size grows with the area or length of a ship.

Call this whole mess the defenses.  Defenses are tough enough that a class
can withstand a heavy barrage from many ships of smaller classes for an
extended period.  They will get lucky eventually, but it is very unlikely
that a cruiser will be harmed by a destroyer's main weaponry for some time.

- ---start of rules digression---

I also decided that a tech level was a serious thing, somewhere between a
factor of 1.4 and 2.  A TL 12 ship would wipe the floor up with a TL 11
ship, but it would be dicey taking on two TL 11 ships.  It can take on 2-3
TL10 ships and win reliably, but four would be very bad.  As a result, 4-6
Sylean dreadnoughts would be a fair fight against a single 90Kt ship of the
late Imperium.  Note that the late Imperium called that class a cruiser.

I looked at the weapons, and decided that the technology curve of Traveller
was too flat.  Here was the setup I came up with:

Two tech levels after introduction, a spinal mount becomes a bay weapon.
Four tech levels after, it becomes a large turret weapon.  After five, it
becomes a small turret weapon.

A technology can be improved for about three tech levels, so the Meson guns
(named after Bob Meson, discoverer of the particle that decays at exactly
the same time every time.) that were used TL 13 became the spinal mounts
through TL 16, and bay weapons at TL 15, small bays at TL 16, and turret
weapons at 17.

I posit the following technologies: laser, Particle accelerator, meson,
disintegrator, gravitic beam.

I also claim that the X-laser is used for turrets instead of the particle
accelerator because of tunnel length limits.  Eventually, this is solved,
somehow.

TL   spinal         lay       say       turret
9    big laser big laser      laser     
10   big laser/PA   big laser big laser laser
11   PA        big laser big laser laser
12   PA        PA        big laser big laser
13   PA/Meson  PA        PA        big laser
14   Meson          PA        PA        X laser
15   Meson          Meson          PA        X laser
16   Meson/Dis Meson          Meson          PA
17   Dis       Meson          Meson          PA
18   Dis       Disintegrator  Meson          Meson
19   Dis/Gravitic   Disintegrator  Disintegrator  Meson

Note:

FWIW, my classes as of M0 are:
class - size - spinal weapon
Frigate/picket 100t-3000t - no
Destroyer - 3-15Kt - yes, in larger classes
Lt Cruiser 15-25Kt - yes
Cruiser 20-50Kt - yes
Dreadnought 50-100Kt - yes, often with battle riders

In my system, ships have external and internal system points for every
system.  A standard hit will take away primarily external points, and will
be degraded by armor.  A special hit will avoid much of the armor, and
damage both classes of system.  As a result, battle damage can cripple a
ship, but leave it repairable.  The systems are terribly tough, and very
well protected on a military vessel.

- --- end rules digression ---

...
>Now, in the REAL world (or a world like Traveller which is realistic
enougth)
>The Fighter is a Highly effective strike weapon.  They can out maneuver
>any large frontline ship, they can zoom in and target important systems
>(engines, gun bays, the bridge) and if you have enougth of them, no ship,
>no matter how much ant-aircraft they have, will be able to cope.

Yes and no - they can target important systems only at close range, because
they do not have the sensor suite that a large ship has.  They cannot
penetrate the armor typically, as they do not have the size to carry the
kind of weapon that can do that.

They are more agile, in that they can change facing quickly.  The weapons
tend to be aimed by turning the ship, which gives them larger punch than
something of this size could normally have, but slower slew.

They re not faster, and they cannot outrun the weapons systems of the
larger vessel.  Enough of them can overwhelm the ability of the gunners to
track the fighters, but that is what fleet escorts are for - mopping up
fighters.  On the other hand, such fleet escorts are what fighters can
usually hurt.

Given enough fighters, a dreadnought would be inconvenienced.

>Add to this the fact that each fighter has Canons and, maybe even bombs
>which it can hit the vessel with.  Remember, there are no shields, so each
>bullet/laser/bomb does as much damage as if they came from an equally
>large vessel.

Not really.  A fighter does not have the energy resources or the space
resources to put into them.  What they can do is make a very large barrage
which is hard to stop.  Further, if the fifty lasers on the fighter were on
a bigger ship, they would be protected by proportionally more armor.  On
the other hand, the large ship has large guns.

You can make it go either way pretty easily, but it is not an open and shut
case.

>Multiply this power by 50 times, or a hundred times (1 for
>each fighter) and you have an effective, nigh, invincible weapon.  The
>only defense is, you guessed it, fighters.
>
>Since the invention of seabourne aircraft, the battleship has become an
>auxilary weapon, and the dreadnaught is extinct.

Because the fighter is vastly faster, longer ranges, and carries very
powerful ordnance whose size is small compared to the destruction is
causes.  Traveller posits a lack of nuclear weapons in general, thus one
needs a lot of raw power to run the energy weapons.  To make the rules fit
the reality, all one needs is effective armor, and close in defenses that
can prevent most missiles/bombs from reaching their targets.  Since a
fighter is small, it cannot carry powerful weapons.

...

>So, in a world where you have large space vessels, who can be most easily
>compared to seaships AND no shields (in the star trek sense) the fighter
>is king :)

Yes, but they do not have the extremely fast fighter which we do today.
Further, they do not have the power packed destruction box that a modern
bomb represents.  The fighter may be king in large enough groups, but the
point can be made to go either way.

>WHich is what i never liked about Starwars.  Each side had shields, which,
>unless they were pathetically weak would make X-wings and Tie-Fighters
>pretty useless.

I have to assume that the sheilds had gaps of some kind that a close in
vessel could see and use, but that a large one could not.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 13:56:24 -0700
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Experience Points?

Jeff Harvey wrote:
> 
> Okay, it's the rookie referee again, with another question that is
> obvious to most of you, but could use a little elaboration for myself.
> 
>         Is there a system for awarding experience points to players?  I guess
> that I would just like to know how other referees award experience
> points, and what is a relative average of experience points to award per
> gaming session.  Again, any thoughts or information are appreciated.
> 
>                                                 Jeff

Look at the adventure tally (AT) in MegaTraveller. That's what I
use.

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 16:00:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Grav Cities in Gas Giants

   Hi.

> From: fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin W. Cain)

> I find it strange that
> Traveller has postulated numerous grav cities throughout the high-tech
> Imperium, but not one of them floating in the upper atmosphere of a gas
> giant.  Any ideas how come???

   I have some idea.  Trav has always portrayed GG atmospheres as very
   dangerous places.  

   ************Spoiler***************************** In "Secret of the
   Ancients", an old CT adventure, part of the thrill was entering into
   one of these incredibly dangerous environments and finding, well, a
   floating city (built by the Ancients).  ("Secret of the Ancients" is
   the adventure that contained all the info about Grandfather and the
   final war which can now be found as a major spoiler in the
   introduction to T4.)
   ***********************************************

   CT also featured an alien race with an unpronouncible name
   (Jgd-il-jagd, or something) which lived in GG's and presumably had
   floating cities.

   So the subject of floating cities in GG's has always had a fairly
   exotic feel to it in Trav.

   -Rob

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 21:00:26 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really)

On Thu, 3 Apr 1997 07:15:22 +0100, you wrote:

> One reason for fighters in space is that they can get much closer to =
the
> enemy without being detected and also they can carry sensors and scout
> ahead of the expensive spinal ships.

This tactic won't work unless the scouts are *significantly* further =
ahead
of the escorted vessel(s).  Since smaller ships are limited to possessing
smaller sensor suites with shorter detection ranges, they would have to =
be
located beyond the range of the sensors of the larger ships to be of any
use.  You will then need to spread these fighters out beyond this =
distance
across the forward half of the sensor sphere of the core ships.  You now
have individual-- possibly paired-- fighters light seconds apart with
minimal sensor ranges themselves (compared to larger ships).  Any larger
ships that they would happen to come across stand a pretty good chance of
detecting the fighters before being detected themselves.

Compared to modern day carrier actions, it isn't the fighters that do the
scouting... it is either the carrier, orbital satellites, or specially
equipped aircraft like Hawkeyes or Sentries.  Fighters don't generally =
even
normally assign their own targets, letting the AWACS or base carrier do
that for them using their superior radar, etc.

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 16:10:27 -0500
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: Interstellar Empires

You wrote: 
> From: Michael Barry <mbarry@pcug.org.au>
> Subject: Re: Interstellar Empires
SNIP
> >
> > To answer your other question, I'm always interested in historical
> > discussions.....
> 
> Great! Let's do lunch or whatever passes for lunch on the TML.
> MB

The ROM one area that is been neglected. I would be interested in any
discussion on that time.

Bob

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1130
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Thursday, April 3 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1131



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: Grav Cities in Gas Giants
AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)
Re: Fighters
Re: Traveller on IRC
Re: APRIL THUDDD Announcement
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
re: Deluxe T4 art
Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: Submarine Fighters
Re: [T97#1119] Tacnames
Re: Fighters
Putting FIGHT back into Figher (was Submarine Fighters)
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters
Re: Law School

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 14:20:50 -0700
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

joel connors wrote:
> 
> Erwin,
> 
> Since I will freely admit to being out of the rules loop, help me out here.
> 
> Are there any provisions for "Silent Running", "Stealth", "EM Masking" etc.
> 
I'll check later and get back to you. I'm at work now. Unless
someone else on the TML happens to have the MT rules handy?

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 14:18:51 -0700
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Grav Cities in Gas Giants

Franklin W. Cain wrote:
> 
> Has anyone else on TML read Mr. Anthony's _Bio_of_a_Space_Tyrant_ series?
> In this series, mankind has *numerous* grav cities floating in the
> atmospheres of the gas giants of the solar system.  I find it strange that
> Traveller has postulated numerous grav cities throughout the high-tech
> Imperium, but not one of them floating in the upper atmosphere of a gas
> giant.  Any ideas how come???
> 
> Franklin

What do you mean by "not one of them"? If you're the referee, why
not create a few? They'd be useful for refueling stations, for one
thing.

I suspect that such cities may simply not be worth mentioning. If
you know that a system has a couple of gas giants and the main
world UWP has a Tech Level of, say, 13, why not say that there are
some cities floating in the gas giants?

It's up to you; it's your universe!

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 16:10:31 -0500
From: James Garriss <jpg@langley.mitre.org>
Subject: AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)

At 12:10 PM 4/3/97 -0500, you wrote:

>I wouldn't put anything much in the way of sensors on a fighter anyway, maybe
>just some active systems. Current aircraft radar is not used in the target
>search role, a larger unit, notably an AWACs or ground-based radar unit (or
>the Carrier's radar, in naval deployments) aquires the target, then hands off
>coordinates to the fighter. This is the same for space fighters, using the
>sensor hand-off rules and tight beam (laser or maser) communications. The
>fighters don't even need transmitters to receive the data.

This begs an interesting question.  Is there a Traveller equivalent to an
AWACS?  It would have to be a ship with a massive array of active sensors.
It would also have a suite full of controllers who are controlling the
movements of all the ships in the region.  It would have active, tight-beam
communication with all other ships in the region.  The tactical advantage
of such a ship would be huge.

 James Garriss                          System Engineer, MITRE               
 jpg@langley.mitre.org          http://www.cs.odu.edu/~garriss      

Unix csh/sh command:
% If I had a ( for every $ the Congress spent, what would I have?
Too many ('s.

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 15:48:19 -0500
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: Fighters

Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au> wrote:
>>>
The only reason you wouldnt have Fighters in space is because of
shields.
SNIP
Now, in the REAL world (or a world like Traveller which is realistic=20
enougth)
The Fighter is a Highly effective strike weapon.  They can out maneuver
SNIP
Add to this the fact that each fighter has Canons and, maybe even bombs
SNIP
each fighter) and you have an effective, nigh, invincible weapon.  The
only defense is, you guessed it, fighters.
SNIP
Everything below the Battleship has been
relegated to protecting the Carrier.

So, in a world where you have large space vessels, who can be most
easily
compared to seaships AND no shields (in the star trek sense) the fighter
is king :)
SNIP
My 2c  comments welcome.
<<<
I can=92t stand it. I have to argue your logic, sorry. :)
You argue that shields are the only reason for not having fighters. You
go on to argue that without shields fighters will pick off the big guys
without any trouble by combining fire and that each weapon does real
damage directly to the ship. And therefore fighters are the weapon of
choice for space fleets. =20
That doesn=92t work, and I don=92t buy it.=20
First:
IF you say that the weapons fighters use can damage a big ship, then why
can=92t the weapons damage a shield just as much? So I would remove that
argument and forget it. More importantly:
Second:
You also say that the fighter is invincible when in mass and that
everything has been reduced to protecting the carrier. Once again, I
have to argue. The only thing that stops fighters from being destroyed
in mass is cover. They have to fly VERY close to the ground and pop up
to fire weapons, or they would be destroyed. Wiped from the sky. Ask the
Israeli=92s during the 1967 war. They had total air supremacy, but ran
into the SAM net put into place by the Egyptians. Huge mess. In space,
you have nothing to hide behind. Weapon systems being just as deadly in
the future as now, I say any fighter my big ship can see, is gone. Poof.
Nothing. The closer it gets, the easier it is to destroy.=20
Third:=20
Everything is out there protecting the carrier? Wrong. They are out
there projecting force. Subs, SAG=92s, MAU=92s, Escorts, AND aircraft all=
 do
the same thing: Deny open waters and occupy zones of control. The
aircraft simply offers the Navy the ability to extend that zone. But
fighters/bombers do not, nor could they, attack an enemy fleet. Not
today.  They do extend the sensor range, collect information and feed
that information back to the big boys who carry big ship killing weapons
(i.e. missiles). Subs, bombers and ships all launch these missiles from
beyond sensor range of the enemy fleet and the missiles are your
invincible force. That is IF you have enough to peel back the defensive
layer. That same layer is VERY deadly to aircraft. Look at what we used
to teach Iraq a lesson; no aircraft, just Cruisers, Destroyers and Subs
launching cruise missiles from beyond his range. Aircraft are too
fragile to send to downtown Baghdad!=20
Forth:
Your argument also implies that small fighters carry weapons that will
cripple a large ship; cruise missile, torpedo, 1000 pound bomb,
whatever. The Traveller universe offers NO such weapon. The missiles are
more like the AIM-9 sidewinder. Kills a fighter, cripples a 30 foot
fishing boat, and ignored by the USS New Jersey. =20

So, let me paint a picture for you:
Two fleets meet in space. They both detect each other at some long
range.
Fleet A launches hundreds of fighters, each with a well trained
extremely valuable crew member at the controls, all from some very
expensive carrier.
Fleet B arms its meson guns and moves in.
Fighters get within range of lasers start to get destroyed.=20
Chance of survival for any crew: none.=20
Cost per ship: High.=20
Chance of replacing crew any time soon: Low (can anyone say Midway and
Japan)=20
Remaining fighters get with in range of their puny missiles and lasers
and start to scrape the hull, but do little real damage.=20
Remaining fighters are destroyed, picked off by direct line of sight
weapons and rapid firing weapons, e.g.  The Phalanx.
Fleet B opens up with meson gun and carrier gets cracked in half.

Sorry, Rant mode off.

>No compromise, no regrets.

I hope that is true.
Let me also say that I love the idea of fighters in space, BG, SW, etc.
Great shows and lots of fun for the PC's. And I think any ref who wants
to use them can hand wave them into any game. I have from time to time
because PC's want to play fighter jocks. I just do not think that they
have any chance of survival in space. LOS=3DKIA.

Bob

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 15:22:26 -0600 (CST)
From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller on IRC

Quoth Suzette C. Dollar:
> The IG IRC server is down for Maintenance.  I will let everyone know 
> when it is back up.

I didn't get an answer on my previous question: was it down last week,
i.e. for Cmdr X's Sociology talk?  I couldn't get on despite multiple
attempts, and just want to know if I missed it or not.

- ----------------------------*------------------------*------------------------
 Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett  |"Nullum magnum ingenium | GURPS fan, Amiga user,
http://www.io.com/~jlockett | sine mixtura dementiae | Shakespearean scholar,
  Email: jlockett@io.com    | fuit." -- Seneca       | actor and director.

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 14:43:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: APRIL THUDDD Announcement

On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Chris Cox wrote:

> Paul Walker <tiger@goldinc.com> wrote regarging requirements fot the patrol
> cruiser:
> 
> > # Must be able to work in conjunction with larger fleet actions.
> > 
> > # Required Minimums:
> >       Jump:  2                     Maneuver:  2
> 
> I would think that think that in order to work with larger fleets the patrol
> cruiser would need to be capable of Jump 3 at TL-12.

Only the newest ships will have J3 during the early M0 period.  Even
within this category, not all warships will; there's a lot to be said for
keeping another 12% of the ship free for powerplants and weapons, so any
ship that can succeed operationally at J2 will be built that way.

A patrol cruiser should be able to "work with" larger fleets, but I see
this more as a question of having good commo and sensors, and reasonable
jump and maneuver ratings.  It's not going to be in the line with the
latest, longest-range TL 12 warships during serious fighting.  At least,
not for long... :) 

> BTW Tech level or Milieu wasn't
> mention, is it the same old Milieu 0, Tech Level 12?

I'm presuming that's the implicit case for all TML/ISBA activities unless
specifically mentioned otherwise.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 16:03:44 -0700 (MST)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

 
> The big Radar dish mounted on top of a plane will not see the plane six feet
> under the body of the plane. I suppose you could install door openers on the
> bottom of all those planes, but at a certain point defense is offset by cost.

One reason to spin your ship---to maximize sensor coverage...
 
> I am again reminded of the movie Executive Decision. They cover the docking
> sequence very well. As I recall great care was taken to get into the Radar
> dead zone created by the aircraft.

Was that the movie whose really stupid trailer I saw... a F-117
docks (!) with an airliner?  I saw the trailer and decided it was
way too dumb to shell out even a biuck for (just based on that
scene).

- -Merrick

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 01:04:07 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: re: Deluxe T4 art

<<Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 20:44:44 -0500
From: Mark Urbin <eclipse@ultranet.com>
Vanya wrote:
>>As part getting rid of the typos, IG must have recommisioned new art for
>>the small arms.
>New art?  What was wrong with the art in _The Traveller Book_? Or the
stuff DGP
>used on those equipment record sheets.  There are *tons* of good Traveller
art
>already produced.  Why not use it?

  As long at it's not that gawd-awful page of non-functional small arms
that was included in the T4 book.>>

And while they're at it, why don't they bring back descriptions in line
with CT/MT/TNE, nice things like snub pistols etc.

- --------------- Dom Mooney (dom@cybergoths.u-net.com)---------------
"The fall of Empire, Gentlemen, is a massive thing, however, and not easily
fought. It is dictated by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a
freezing of caste, a damming of curiousity - a hundred other factors."
Seldon

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 23:00:59 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters

On Thu, 3 Apr 1997 08:55:49 -0800, you wrote:

>=20
> I will not enter a discussion about space fighters.
> I will not enter a discussion about space fighters.
> I will not enter a discussion about space fighters.
> Oh, heck. I'll enter a discussion about space fighters

I knew it!  I just knew it...

> Let's compare 500x10-ton fighters to 1x50,000-ton battlerider

Here's a better comparison: 1,000x50t fighters (equals 50,000t)...

[lots of good points snipped]

I didn't really want to start the discussion on the effectiveness of =
hordes
of fighters armed with pea-shooters going up against a heavily armoured
capital ship, but these are actually very good reasons why fighters =
aren't
the reigning champions of space combat in Traveller.

While Bruce's post works perfectly within the rules of T4, we have no =
Real
World(tm) model to compare them to.  Not all components of a battlerider
will benefit from the ship's thick armour (like sensors and some weapon
emplacements), so fighters could still do SOME damage.  Unfortunately, =
the
rules for T4 do not account for this.

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 16:00:56 -0700 (MST)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

 
> -Bring weapons to bear on a Capital Target and defending damaged hull.
> -Avoiding a possible boarder craft in the middle of battle.
> 
> I would concede that if a ship knew it was the victim of an active board,
> spinning may well out weigh the lack of targeting and defense. 
> However if not, then why bother?

To bring weapons to bear.  If you have 50% of your turrets on the
top of the hull, and 50% on the bottom, and you *don't* slowly
rotate, then you never use more than 50% at any given target.  It
almost always makes more sense to rotate.  In multi-ship battles,
hiding a facing from the enemy is moot since they are probably at a
few different facings.
 
> I would return with this:
> The above example would translate across to a Scout Ship and a man in a
> Spacesuit.
> 
> A more proper question is this:
> A precision sports car throws a grapple on a flat bed truck. The Truck does
> donuts. Will the Sports car be able to match speed to keep circling the
> Truck, while closing the circle smaller?

Bad example, remember that the small one has to constantly change
facing and must thrust to keep in a circle in the (more or less)
frictionless environment.  It will reel you in, or break the cable.

Boarding a ship with any functional thrusters would be a major
hassle.  It wouldn't be easy if they were down, but it was rotating
(if I thought I was gonna be boarded I'd _tumble_ the ship on all
axies.

- -Merrick

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 23:00:49 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

On Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:10:21 -0500 (EST), you wrote:

> Try building a big ship with 6Gs, economics of scale work somewhat in
> reverse. Once you get past a certain size, bridges start eating up =
space the
> fighters don't have to worry about, the little guys don't have to worry=
 about
> jump drives (and J-drive fuel). Thus they have added room for maneuver =
drive,
> fuel and armor and weapons.

To make the comparison between a single ship and a group of fighters
(totalling the same tonnage) fair, however, you must include the carrier =
in
the equation (unless the fighters are system-bound, in which you should
include the supply base).  While it may be true that fighters don't need
jump drives, large fuel supplies, sick bays, repair/refitting facilities,
hangers, a frozen watch, etc. on board, they do need access to them at
*some* time.  In a way, part of the cost (and tonnage) of a fighter is =
made
up of a fraction of the carrier/base itself.

=46rom a gaming standpoint, some sort of play balance between opposing =
forces
is necessary to determine which side is "better".  If using Credits or
tonnage to determine the size of two opposing fleets, carriers and =
support
craft must be included as well.

If play balance isn't the goal, then *of course* a swarm of 50 ton =
fighters
(50+) can take on an escort or small destroyer any day :)

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 97 18:10:00 -0500
From: jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN)
Subject: Re: [T97#1119] Tacnames

fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin W. Cain) writes...

T::>Has anyone got a registry (list) for tac-codes for use in TNE?
 ::>I mean, some people might have problems coming up with tac-codes for their
 ::>PCs and NPCs, and could use the ideas of others as "food for thought"...

 If there's enough interest, I'll be glad to do it through
 Freelance Traveller...

T::>I'd be interested in seeing what tac-codes others have come up with...

 Well, one day when my party was "in a mood", as we describe it,
 we came up with the following:

 James "Paisley" Beam - Pilot; we never got around to naming the
                        ship.  They started out calling him
                        "Whiskey", but he always responded "Not
                        just _any_ whiskey, Royal Paisley!"

 Grey "Ageless" Doran - In spite of her Solomani name, she was
                        of pure Vilani stock.  At the time of
                        this adventure, she was 66 - and looked
                        about 30.  She was the leader of the
                        party.

 Leroy Reginald Fortescue "Icepick" Jones, III - Engineer,
                        except planetside, when he became an
                        assassin.  Named (naturally) after his
                        favorite weapon.  Started out as
                        "Reggie", because it annoyed him.

 Gashimaaru Edward "Hacker" Bryant-Shiikaradesh - Navigator and
                        Computers (Obviously).  Intrusion
                        Specialist.

 Z. K. "Flatfoot" Flanahan - ex-cop, tactician.  Refused to tell
                        anyone what "Z.K." was (Zebadiah
                        Kamehameha); when asked, would always
                        growl (literally) "I don't like what it
                        stands for; I don't use what it stands
                        for.  I'd rather be called 'Flatfoot'
                        than by those names."  So they did.
                        Frequently swore using the names
                        "Emmanuel" and "Miriam"; it later came
                        out that these were his parents' names.

==========================================================================
Jeff Zeitlin                                      jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com
- ---
  OLXWin 1.00b  A species that enslaves other beings is hardly superior

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 16:24:13 -0700 (MST)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Fighters

 
> So, let me paint a picture for you:
> Two fleets meet in space. They both detect each other at some long
> range.
> Fleet A launches hundreds of fighters, each with a well trained
> extremely valuable crew member at the controls, all from some very
> expensive carrier.
> Fleet B arms its meson guns and moves in.
> Fighters get within range of lasers start to get destroyed.=20
> Chance of survival for any crew: none.=20
> Cost per ship: High.=20
> Chance of replacing crew any time soon: Low (can anyone say Midway and
> Japan)=20
> Remaining fighters get with in range of their puny missiles and lasers
> and start to scrape the hull, but do little real damage.=20
> Remaining fighters are destroyed, picked off by direct line of sight
> weapons and rapid firing weapons, e.g.  The Phalanx.
> Fleet B opens up with meson gun and carrier gets cracked in half.

Yup.  That's it in a nutshell.  The missiles (with better rules (the
missile rules in JTAS-whatevere ages ago makes them fairly nasty,
though) could critical hit escorts I'd think.   Larger ships would
get hull-scraped, but if they're in range of fighter direct fire
weapons, they're dead in large numbers.

- -Merrick

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 17:44:47 +0000
From: twolf@unix.tfs.net
Subject: Putting FIGHT back into Figher (was Submarine Fighters)

Glenn is absolutely correct!  Traveller does not allow for effective 
fighters versus ships of the line.

> The same thing is operating in Traveller space combat.  The fastest
> fighter still has only Maneuver-6, the same as the fastest
> battleship.  It generally has better agility (under the High Guard
> system, anyway), but it can't accelerate any faster.  So submarine
> fighters are a good analogy for space fighters in this respect --
> and that supports the argument that space fighters won't be an
> effective force in ship-to-ship actions.
> 
> I think that space fighters are more likely to be used in taking out
> COACC and supporting troops on the ground (we'll always have troops
> on the ground, because, no matter how big the heavy weapons and how
> advanced the technology, you aren't holding any piece of ground
> until you can keep a nineteen-year-old with a rifle on it) (I don't
> remember which founding father of Traveller I'm paraphrasing there).
> 
If you want to use fighter effectively in space combat you will need 
to change the ship combat rules to a) allow the fighter as chance to 
survive and b) do serious damage to a ship of the line.

I have a couple of ideas.  New thread--Putting FIGHT back into 
Fighters.

1) Increase the (-) modifiers for small ships--this will increase 
fighters survival.

2) Develop ship to ship missiles that a fighter can carry that will 
serious hurt a capital ship.  The reason I lean towards missiles 
instead of strafing with lasers is that lasers are for 
self-protection and smaller targets (other fighters, ground strafing, 
etc.)

JD
Twolf

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 16:11:40 -0700 (MST)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

 
> Yes but we're dealing with a 20 minute combat round. If I'm the
> pilot of the Free Trader, I fire with the laser on the enemy side,
> flip the ship and fire with the other laser. I don't need to be
> _constantly_ rotating.

Why waste time and effort to stop rotating and start again all the
time?  But in in a rotational period of a couple minutes, and let it
spin.  Easy.
 
> Now, capital ships with guns everywhere need to rotate for the reason
> you give. However, it's only necessary during combat.
 
Makes sense for sensors as well.  That way you have some fixed broad
field scanning sensors---they get a bright source and point the
narrow beams at it.

> > Another very good reason: A laser does more damage the longer it is
> > trained on a particular spot. (My childhood experiments with plastic
> > toys, sunlight, and magnifying glasses proved this) If the ship rotates,
> > you force an attacking laser to distribute its energy over a greater
> > area, thus reducing penetration and hopefully, damage.
> 
> The original question asked about rotating all the time. The above
> paragraph IS a good reason to rotate, but only in combat. What about
> when you're not in combat?
 
When you're not in combat, boarding isn't a problem (but see sensor
point above).

> The placement of sensor arrays should be done in such a manner as to
> eliminate the need for this sort of thing and to reduce the size of 
> the shadow. And once that shadow extends to less than 25,000 km away
> from the ship, it doesn't matter anymore because any approaching ship
> is automatically detected (in MT rules).

One, this isn't MT :-)  Two, if you spin the ship, no single sensor
has a shadow perpendicular to the spin axis.  This is a great reason
for (military especially) ships to always spin.  As long a single
sensor works, you have coverage.

> It would be very bad design to have only one sensor array per sensor
> device and have that device located in a place where most of the sky
> can't be seen from it.

Most is Pi steradians (half a sphere) or so assuming the sensor is
on the hull.  That requires you to rotate to have full coverage.

> If you make it necessary to rotate the ship to make sensors able to
> see all of the sky, then the complexity of the rotation varies as the
> number of sensors you have. If I have only one sensor, I can just
> rotate along a single axis and that sensor will see everything. If I
> have five different sensors and each one is placed far from its 
> neighbors (because you wouldn't want all of your sensors taken out with
> one shot, would you?), what kind of rotation "circle" must I use to
> get all the sensors able to see all of the sky within a reasonable
> time frame?

The point is that it's always good to rotate, even if it isn't
always required.  

- -Merrick

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 17:07:19 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)

On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, James Garriss wrote:

> This begs an interesting question.  Is there a Traveller equivalent to an
> AWACS?  It would have to be a ship with a massive array of active sensors.
> It would also have a suite full of controllers who are controlling the
> movements of all the ships in the region.  It would have active, tight-beam
> communication with all other ships in the region.  The tactical advantage
> of such a ship would be huge.

I don't know how useful it would be, but I know I wouldn't want to be
anywhere near that sitting duck errr AWACS ship when it lights up it's
active sensors....then _everything_ will see it, unless you're also
positing that (like our AWACS aircraft) they also have significant jamming
capability.

Stealthy ships with huge passive arrays, now those are a horse of a
different color...I think we discussed THOSE to death a few months ago;-)

However, this DOES bring back smaller craft as fighters...if your AWAC's
are busy jamming all of their sensors, and they yours, smaller ships might
get in under the sensor 'snow' and get a hit on those cap ships.
 

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 16:27:50 -0800
From: jdconnors@genmagic.com (joel connors)
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

At 04:03 PM 4/3/97 -0700, you wrote:
> 

>Was that the movie whose really stupid trailer I saw... a F-117
>docks (!) with an airliner?  I saw the trailer and decided it was
>way too dumb to shell out even a biuck for (just based on that
>scene).
>

Well yes it was. I admit we rented it one night to watch. Kurt Russell is
great in the flick, Segal dies early. You did have to suspend some disbelief
considering how big the inside of the F-177 was supposed to be. 

As to the docking, with in the confines of the movie it was well explained.
Not to say it was totally believable, just parts of it.

Joel

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 17:45:57 -0700 (MST)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters

 
> > Let's compare 500x10-ton fighters to 1x50,000-ton battlerider
> 
> Here's a better comparison: 1,000x50t fighters (equals 50,000t)...

Possibly... The best comparison would compare the costs of the
units, including crew training.

> While Bruce's post works perfectly within the rules of T4, we have no =
> Real
> World(tm) model to compare them to.  Not all components of a battlerider
> will benefit from the ship's thick armour (like sensors and some weapon
> emplacements), so fighters could still do SOME damage.  Unfortunately, =
> the
> rules for T4 do not account for this.

True enough.  But one hit on a fighter is probably a mission kill
(though the 50 ton variety might be more survivable---'cept the
enemy would likely have nastier PD weapons if the typical foe used
heavy fighters).  So each shot from the fighter has some chance of
hitting a surface feature (maybe 50% on a warship) that it will then
damage a little.  Each shot from the battlerider kills a fighter.
Even if missiles are made to seriously damage large ships, they
don't need the fighter at all, and in fact benefit from any
thing that helps fighters be so great themselves.

So if fighters can seriously damage large ships (with missiles, by
default) then they aren't needed since the missiles don't really
need to be carried to the target.  Note that this is less true with
TNE since the way the reaction drives worked, a typical 12g12
missile could benefit from the (reletively) endless maneuver
capability of the fighter.  

- -Merrick

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 19:43:59 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: Law School

Glenn Goffin wrote:

[chainsaw noises]
>>
>>On graduation, receive law degree (type depends on law school attended
>>and course of
>>study).
>>To pass bar exam for bar below Imperial level, roll 9+; DM +1 if Int 9+;
>>DM +1 if Edu
>>9+; DM +1 if you took a bar review course (Cr2000)
>>To pass bar exam for admission to Imperial bar, roll 11+; DM+1 if Int 9+;
>>DM +1 if Edu
>>9+; DM +1 if you took a bar review course (Cr5000)
>
>I thought about this a little more.  The penalty for failing the bar exam
>is that you
>have to take it again (and that's a real penalty).  In the US, the bar
>exam is
>offered twice a year; maybe we make it once a year for character
>generation.  Passing
>the bar exam entitles you to practice law in that jurisdiction; if you
>don't ever pass
>it, you can never legally practice law, and that should be reflected in
>your career
>path.  For example, an army JAG who can't pass the bar exam might have to
>serve in the
>infrantry, instead.
>
>The main advantages of passing the Imperial bar -- which entitles you to
>practice before
>the Imperial Courts, which generally handle more lucrative cases (although
>that's not
>the legal distinction between Imperial and local courts) -- are
>eligibility on mustering
>out for +Soc, TAS, and, of course, more money.

     Something that might be worth considering is the fact that many
jurisdictions require an apprenticeship period either before or after bar
school.  In Ontario, it goes 3 years law school, 6-8 months articles,6-8
months bar school, loose on the streets with the power to sue.  The program
I'm doing is 4 years at law school (the extra year gives you civil and
common law degrees), plus 8 months of bar school, plus a 6-month "stage",
before getting called to the bar.  It's kind of annoying to think that if I
were in California, I'd already have been practicing for the past 6-8
months :\...

     Maybe Volker can tell us how it works in Germany?

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1131
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Friday, April 4 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1132



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: Submarine Fighters
RE: RC Tac-Codes
Re: Traveller on IRC
Re: Putting FIGHT back into Figher (was Submarine Fighters)
AWACS Starships and Zhodani
Re: Putting FIGHT back into Figher (was Submarine Fighters)
Fighters - a response (LONG)
Re: Fighters
Re: Grav Cities in Gas Giants
Rotating ships
Re: misjump
[none]
TAC CODES
Re: Fighters
Re: Grav Cities in Gas Giants

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 17:49:11 -0700
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors

At 12:10 pm 04/03/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>In a message dated 4/3/97 7:26:16 AM, David J. Golden wrote:
>
><<Normally, to rotate clockwise, you'd fire thrusters 2 and 3. If you fire
>only one, say #2, the net effect is BOTH a clockwise torque AND a downward
>force. Simple mechanics.>>
>
>You can rotate the ship all you want, and it works great if you're standing
>still, but if you have any significant forward momentum, jiggling will do
>nothing for evasion, since you're course is set until you burn main
>thrusters.

Agreed. I wasn't trying to point out how you could evade by rotating if
your main drive was out. I was trying to point out how, if you had
thrusters which could rotate your vessel, you had thrusters which would
allow you to evade laterally. Again, if you look at the original message,
firing thrusters #1 and #2 results in a net change in my course.
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 17:54:41 -0700
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

At 11:03 am 04/03/97 -0800, you wrote:
>>   The stress ain't the whole problem, it's the relative masses. Go tie a
>>rope to a friend's car, hold on to the other end, and ask him to do some
>>donuts ....
>
>I would return with this:
>The above example would translate across to a Scout Ship and a man in a
>Spacesuit.

     A scout ship is SIGNIFICANTLY larger than a car, so the translation isn't
very good. Even a 5-ton fighter is really off.

>A more proper question is this:
>A precision sports car throws a grapple on a flat bed truck. The Truck does
>donuts. Will the Sports car be able to match speed to keep circling the
>Truck, while closing the circle smaller?

     Except we've already established there's no inherent speed advantage in
space associated with being smaller. So the "flat bed truck" is just as
likely to be as fast as the sports car.

     And even so, given the facts of angular motion, a very small motion in
close to the center of rotation (where the truck is) results in a very
large motion further out (where your sportscar is).
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:14:05 +0000
From: Garry Ward <Garry.E.Ward@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

At 03:18 PM 4/3/97 +0000, you wrote:

>But to make a 100,000 ton carrier perform at an upper limit of 6g
>acceleration would cost a hell of a lot more than to make a small 6g
>fighter.  Also, space (someone correct me if im wrong) is not a complete
>vacuem, therfore larger ships face more resistence then smaller fighters.
>
>Also, i would assume that a fighter could get to its top speed a whole lot
>faster than a large ship.
>
>Shido
>CRESCENTS
>A new moon's silver fin ascends the dark,
>As waves engulf the crescent-bladed shark.
>
>
True, space is not a perfect vaccum. Resistance to movement is not the main
problem with the material that is floating around it space. Energetic impact
damage is. The smaller ship may not survive higher speed impacts with random
space objects that a larger ship travelling at the same speed would barely
notice. So you shuck the armor, pick up speed, and go splat all over the
place on an equally fast moving piece of something a few millimeters in size
which would dent but not deter a bigger ship. Earlier postings mentioned the
idea of a defense mechanism that left out a cloud of ball bearing sized
objects. 100k capital ship could wade thru quite a few of these where a
fighter would vanish in the first instant.

As long as the same type of manuver drive is available to both the fighter
and the capital ship, I can not see a significant advantage. Unless the
fighter weights in at the same size as an SDB. Strip an SDB of it's long
term crew accomodations, replace them with added armor, fuel and munitions,
you are beginning to get a picture of what I see a space 'fighter' as being.
X-wings, Vipers and such are just not viable. 

Garry



 

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 18:02:00 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: RE: RC Tac-Codes

My favorite TacCode:

Hard Sell:  An ex-Oriflamme Marine.  He got it during a rescue mission.
While the rest of the party deliberated the best way to get past the gate,
he got tired of waiting, grabbed his LAG, and kicked in the door of the
guardshack shouting:

"Hi! I'm the regional distributor of Reformation Coalition ammo!  Move a
muscle and get some free samples!!"

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   clown outfits.       -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 18:49:10 +0000
From: "Suzette C. Dollar" <suzd@pop.goodnet.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller on IRC

> Quoth Suzette C. Dollar:
> > The IG IRC server is down for Maintenance.  I will let everyone know 
> > when it is back up.
> 
> I didn't get an answer on my previous question: was it down last week,
> i.e. for Cmdr X's Sociology talk?  I couldn't get on despite multiple
> attempts, and just want to know if I missed it or not.

Yes, the IG server was down last week.  I hope to convince CmdrX to 
reschedule.

Suz

Suzette C. Dollar
#traveller Channel Manager
suzd@goodnet.com

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 19:03:36 -0700 (MST)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Putting FIGHT back into Figher (was Submarine Fighters)

 
> I have a couple of ideas.  New thread--Putting FIGHT back into 
> Fighters.
 
Well, fighters have never had this role in the past (no more canon
past that, I promise :-)

> 1) Increase the (-) modifiers for small ships--this will increase 
> fighters survival.
 
And make missiles even harder to spot/hit...

> 2) Develop ship to ship missiles that a fighter can carry that will 
> serious hurt a capital ship.  The reason I lean towards missiles 
> instead of strafing with lasers is that lasers are for 
> self-protection and smaller targets (other fighters, ground strafing, 
> etc.)

Why bother with the fighter?  Any missile that can kill a ship costs
less than the fighter that carries it, and is expendible (unlike a
fighter pilot).

- -Merrick

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 20:59:43 -0500 (EST)
From: "John P. Raynor" <john.raynor@yale.edu>
Subject: AWACS Starships and Zhodani

On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, James Garriss wrote:
> This begs an interesting question.  Is there a Traveller equivalent to an
> AWACS?  It would have to be a ship with a massive array of active sensors.
> It would also have a suite full of controllers who are controlling the
> movements of all the ships in the region.  It would have active, tight-beam
> communication with all other ships in the region.  The tactical advantage
> of such a ship would be huge.

...and if there *is* such a starship, would
   it be named the "I.S.S.Directrix?"

Referring to the "Lensman" series makes me wonder about the role (if any)
of telepaths and clairvoyants in the Zhodani fleet.  Although it probably
wouldn't happen, because the distances between vessels is so great, it's
very easy to envision a Zhodani admiral, snapping out orders to a crowd of
attentive telepaths, who then relay those orders to telepaths aboard other
vessels.  Meanwhile, aboard the Imperial warships that Zhodani fleet is
about to engage, the officers in charge of electronic warfare are audibly
grinding their teeth down with frustration, fully aware of what those
dirty brain-raping Zho-ies are up to, but powerless to stop them...

                                                          - J. Raynor
                          

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 12:12:27 +1000
From: midnight@vision.net.au (Jason Anderson)
Subject: Re: Putting FIGHT back into Figher (was Submarine Fighters)

>2) Develop ship to ship missiles that a fighter can carry that will
>serious hurt a capital ship.

But then what is stopping the capital ships carrying these missiles as well?

Cheers,
Jason

PS: If this message makes it to the TML, can someone - anyone - please
email me and let me know. I've sent several messages to the list, but so
far I haven't had any response.

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

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 00:27:40 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Fighters - a response (LONG)

Okay, here are all the fighter related email i have read compiled in one
big email.  Before i begin i would like to make a few things clear.  

A) Im using the ship/fighter-spaceship/Spacefighter anaology.  I think
this is the most appropriate, but it still has its flaws.  I think its the
best, unless someone has been in a real space battle and can tell us
otherwise.

b) Spacefighters are cool.  So im going to be biased anyways:)

c) Shields make a major difference in my opnion.  In a universe with
shields, fighters (10t pee-shooters) are useless unless the shields are
pathetic or the fighters have substantial fire power.  So the next premise
is that shields (Star Trek style) dont exist or are not very common.

So, the question is do Space Fighters make sense?

Economies
- ---------
Unless economics are really different in the Imperium as opposed to earth
today, it will definetly be more cost effective to build a high speed,
well armed, highly maneuvrable 10t Fighter as  opposed to a Dreadnaught
with the same capabilities.  Also, lets not forget that worlds just
begining an interstellar empire would find it much easier switching an
already established industry of atmospheric fighters to space bourne
fighters, then building huge battleships from scratch.  Though i'll
concede the last point is not relevent to established empires like the
Imperium.

Effectiveness
- -------------
How effective would a fighter be?  I think quite effective.  Militaraly a
10t fighter is more expendable then a 100,000t Battleship.  Also 10t
fighters would be easier to replace.

Fighters would be quite versatile as well.  Fighters could more easily
(and cheaply) be used for planetary warfare, so there dual role would be
valuable.

Some people have argued that they couldnt carry the firepower to effect a
Battleship.  I disagree.  Stick a fusion bomb or Fission torpedo on these
babies (the equavilent to a Torpedo) and they could wreck havoc on any
heavily armoured vessel.

Also, the ability to mass hundreds and maybe even thousands of these
babies would make them an irresistable force.  No matter how big a
battleship is or how heavily armed or armoured it is no way it would
have the Point Defense (AA) to handle such an onslaught.  No one could
conceivably argue (effectively) that a battleship could handle 100 or a
thousand fusion torpedos/missles.

After the battle, whos won both militaraly and economically?  The guy who
lost the 100,000t Battleship or the side that lost 100 fighters?  Dont
forget, lives are generally more expendable then hardware.

Another poster made the point that even in modern naval warfare planes are
not very effective against modern Point Defense.  I disagree.  If this
were so why was the last great Battleship engagement was France, 1940?
Also, why do modern Navies still rely on Carriers and land based aircraft
over battleships?  Because no matter how good or how massed your point
defense is, it wont hit everytime.  Fighters will get threw.  



>> Now, in the REAL world (or a world like Traveller which is realistic  =
>>enougth)
>> The Fighter is a Highly effective strike weapon.  They can out maneuver
>> any large frontline ship, they can zoom in and target important systems
>
>It's kinda hard to "zoom in and target important systems" in the
>Traveller universe.  Since you are dealing with weapons that target
>and engage at the speed of light, anything within a light second is
>subject to being destroyed with remarkable ease.

I disagree, your thinking in terms of 25th century offense vs 20th century
defense.  If a fighter can fly as fast as the "speed of light" (which it
cant) it is only logical to assume it would have the guidance, tracking
and maneuverability to cope with that speed, and the enemy (all things
being equal) would have the defense to match it. 

>> (engines, gun bays, the bridge) and if you have enougth of them, no =
>>ship,
>> no matter how much ant-aircraft they have, will be able to cope.
>
>To get that close, you would probably have to overwhelm the target
>with *more* fighter tonnage than that of the target.  It would then be
>unfair to compare 40 50t fighters to a lone 1,000t escort, either in
>cost or combat effectiveness.

Why do you say that?  What are you comparing it to? Have you flown in a
battleship?  All you can logically compare it to is a naval battle.  In a
naval battle the number of attacking craft are usually in the hundreds, if
there land based attacker, there in the thousands.  I can tell you now,
that the planes will come back with a lot less damage then the completely
destroyed capital ship.  The aircraft will fight again, but the ship will
not.

So they are cost effective.

During the battle of crete, the British sent the Meditaranian Fleet in to
withdraw commonwelth soldiers from greece as well as crete.  They had
practically zero air cover.  The germans had no naval power, only land
based aircraft.  Now British ships had been built with a dependecy on AA,
so they had thick anti-air fire.  

The Mediterranian fleet was 60% destroyed, and ever ship was damaged.  The
germans captured crete and had insignificant losses, mostly hardware, as
they were able to recover pilots.

So who won the battle both economically and militaraly?  The guy with the
air power.  Once again, im making an analogy between ships and space
vessels.


>Capital ships don't just defend with offensive weaponry (ie: point
>defence laser fire you consider anti-aircraft).  Active and passive
>defences such as sandcasters and screens are also at their disposal--
>defences that fighters usually lack.  Larger ships are also usually
>more heavily armoured, with redundant back-ups.  The Frozen Watch can
>also be used to quickly replace losses on a capital ship, while a
>fighter without a pilot is pretty much out of the combat.

So, with all these frozen watchs and redundent systems, you still think
that fighters are not as econimical as Battleships?  Using ww2 squadron
sizes, i would say 1 carrier with 250 planes could take out that
battleship.  The planes would live to fight another day, the battleship
is permeantly lost.


>Additionally, it is hard to find pilots willing to go into a situation
>where there is an extremely high likelihood of them being killed.  By
>overwhelming the target, you are doing so knowing that many of your
>pilots won't be coming back.  With both sides being *equally matched*,
>morale is probably higher on the capital ship.

I disagree, show me an historical example.  Name one naval battle where a
battleship with out aircover went into battle with a carrier and won? Show
me these high morale marines of yours?  From ww2 to modern times, a
battleship would be going on a suicide mission against the carrier.  And
your telling me the Battleship would have higher morale knowing they had
been sentenced to death.  Not likely.

Not to mention the fact that two sides are rarely evenly matched, so your
example is fraudelent.


> Add to this the fact that each fighter has Canons and, maybe even bombs
> which it can hit the vessel with.  Remember, there are no shields, so =
>each
> bullet/laser/bomb does as much damage as if they came from an equally
> large vessel.  Multiply this power by 50 times, or a hundred times (1 =
>for
> each fighter) and you have an effective, nigh, invincible weapon.  The
> only defense is, you guessed it, fighters.
>
>>You seem to be forgetting that a large capital ship could have about
>>50 times (or 100 times) as many weapons as a single fighter, levelling
>>the playing field once again (well, maybe not perfectly level :)

Not really, since most of these weapons will be designed for larger ship
targeting.  I cant remember the last time a saw a spinal mounted Meson
canon open fire and hit a fighter.  Can you?



>Also, i would assume that a fighter could get to its top speed a whole
>lot
>faster than a large ship.>>
>
>That's all a matter of Gs of acceleration, "top speed" in space is fairly
>close to the speed of light, so there isn't any real top speed. However,
>beyond certain speeds it becomes difficult to engage in space combat,
>since
>no matter how much accleration you can manage, you're still pretty much
>traveling in a straight line.

This is an incorrect assumption.  Top speed is whatever a space craft has
been built to go upto.  Im sure light speed isnt one of them (mayb absurd
speed:).  Each tech level logically would have an upper limit of the
absolute fastest speed it can build engines to.





PaChi,

michl

electric RAIN                      http://www.electric-rain.net/


The closest a person ever comes to perfection is when they fill out a job application form
 Stanley J. Randall

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

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 00:40:35 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Fighters

On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Merrick Burkhardt wrote:

>  
> > So, let me paint a picture for you:
> > Two fleets meet in space. They both detect each other at some long
> > range.
> > Fleet A launches hundreds of fighters, each with a well trained
> > extremely valuable crew member at the controls, all from some very
> > expensive carrier.
> > Fleet B arms its meson guns and moves in.
> > Fighters get within range of lasers start to get destroyed.=20
> > Chance of survival for any crew: none.=20
> > Cost per ship: High.=20
> > Chance of replacing crew any time soon: Low (can anyone say Midway and
> > Japan)=20
> > Remaining fighters get with in range of their puny missiles and lasers
> > and start to scrape the hull, but do little real damage.=20
> > Remaining fighters are destroyed, picked off by direct line of sight
> > weapons and rapid firing weapons, e.g.  The Phalanx.
> > Fleet B opens up with meson gun and carrier gets cracked in half.


Wrong.  Its to simplistic.

Your assuming that theres no surprise, which is a major part of any naval
(space) battle.  If you can say "midway" you should also know that the
americans took the japanese by surprise, and both were carrier fleets.

Your also assuming that Turret mounted weapons can be used against
fighters.  This makes no sense.  A ship would have large weapons
(equivalent to a naval ships Canons) and AA (Point Defense) also a batch
of missles.  The large weapons would be useless against fighters, since
they are designed for Capital ship-to-ship battles.  So there only defense
is AA.  This means that a hell-of-a-lot more fighters are not supperessed
and make it threw to the target and unload there weapons.  They would
would then return to ther ESCORTED carriers to rearm while a second wave
of fighters approach.

Thirdly, your assuming that the fighters have pee-shooters for weaponry.
This also makes no sense because they would be useless.  They would be
carrying a barrage of missile/torpedo based weaponry, which would do much
more that just 'scrape the hull'.

PaChi,

michl

electric RAIN                      http://www.electric-rain.net/


The closest a person ever comes to perfection is when they fill out a job application form
 Stanley J. Randall

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 20:45:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Grav Cities in Gas Giants

> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 14:44:53 -0500 (EST)
> From: fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin W. Cain)
> 
> Has anyone else on TML read Mr. Anthony's _Bio_of_a_Space_Tyrant_ series?
> In this series, mankind has *numerous* grav cities floating in the
> atmospheres of the gas giants of the solar system.  I find it strange that
> Traveller has postulated numerous grav cities throughout the high-tech
> Imperium, but not one of them floating in the upper atmosphere of a gas
> giant.  Any ideas how come???

Why would anyone want to?  You're at the bottom of a huge gravity well,
making travel to and from your city expensive and dangerous; you need both
CG lifters to stay up, and grav comp to weigh less than 500 lbs.; if the
former fails for more than a minute or two, your whole city is dead and
crushed; the only important resource is hydrogen, which is more economical
to scoop (maintaining a good chunk of orbital velocity) than to export
from rest relative to the planet.  Not where *I* want to live!

In the Imperium, I'm sure there are a few grav-cities on Jovians, for
specialized reasons -- trade with natives (where they exist) being one
interesting possibility.  But you won't find many of them.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 20:53:30 -0800
From: rdhough@orca.bc.ca (Richard Hough)
Subject: Rotating ships

>Yes but we're dealing with a 20 minute combat round. If I'm the
>pilot of the Free Trader, I fire with the laser on the enemy side,
>flip the ship and fire with the other laser. I don't need to be
>_constantly_ rotating.

After you hit an enemy ship do you set a timer so when the next "turn"
comes around 20 minutes you hurry to flip the ship over to target the enemy
with the other laser? "Turns" are abstractions for game purposes; in
reality all the targeting, maneuvering, recharging, sensor activity, and
flipping is going on constantly. A ship that flips over constantly is
spinning.

>It would be very bad design to have only one sensor array per sensor
>device and have that device located in a place where most of the sky
>can't be seen from it.

Why go to the expense of installing redundant sensor arrays when you can
just spin the ship so one array covers the entire sky?

>If you make it necessary to rotate the ship to make sensors able to
>see all of the sky, then the complexity of the rotation varies as the
>number of sensors you have.

I don't follow. If I install a second sensor the "complexity of rotation
varies"? How? If I install one sensor on the side of the ship and spin the
ship, the sensor can sweep the entire sky. If I install another sensor both
sweep the entire sky. Do you think sensors say "oops, I can't scan there
because some other sensor is looking there too"?

- --
Richard Hough
rdhough@orca.bc.ca

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

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 20:53:26 -0800
From: rdhough@orca.bc.ca (Richard Hough)
Subject: Re: misjump

>There are many sources of
>water aboard a ship in emergencies. Apart from the LS
>complement of water, there are cargoes and there is the
>inevitable crates of beer for the PCs.

>Sooner or later, you can rustle up enough fuel for one jump
>to safety.

>I think people have overlooked the special reservoir of emergency fuel
>that most merchant ships carry...
>They're called *passengers*...

I beg to differ. Water, beer, fruit, cargo, passengers et al are all
unrefined. Extracting the hydrogen will yield less than 10% of its mass as
fuel. Even if the entire ship was a cargo bay of beer it wouldn't have
enough hydrogen for a jump-1.

>So unless you're at maximum jump,
>there will be more fuel available.

Unfortunately practically every ship in the rule books is designed to
contain only enough fuel for 1 maximum jump. Ergo, the first time you
misjump, you die.

>Then again, what's the chance of an accident and
>injury in a car journey today? Yet we still use cars!

The chance of total loss of the entire ship, crew, and cargo is 1/36 for
every jump, minimum. This works out to about 50% chance of total loss per
year. If car travel had the same chance of accident then western
civilization would become extinct since no one on Earth who ever traveled
in a car would live to reproductive age. The same is true for starships
using the T4 misjump rules. The T4 misjump rules are totally, ridiculously,
broken.

- --
Richard Hough
rdhough@orca.bc.ca

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 15:49:30 +1000
From: shane.dowling@deetya.gov.au
Subject: [none]

>Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 16:24:13 -0700 (MST)
>From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
>Subject: Re: Fighters

Sniping

>Yup.  That's it in a nutshell.  The missiles (with better rules (the
>missile rules in JTAS-whatevere ages ago makes them fairly nasty,
>though) could critical hit escorts I'd think.   Larger ships would
>get hull-scraped, but if they're in range of fighter direct fire
>weapons, they're dead in large numbers.

>- -Merrick

Do missle carring fighters have a MFD?  The reason is that I though that
missle armed fighters where a one shot wonder and came up with a battle
plan to keep the useful.

The plan is that they are launched from the battlerider then close to
missle range.  Just as the fighters get into missle range and fires
there missiles, the battlerider fires long range missles in volleys and
passes control over to fighters when they are free to guide them onto
target.

The result is that the sensors will be flooded with incoming
missile/fighters, more so if the fighters are giving the same return as
a missile.

Shane   

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 00:10:31 -0500
From: "Bill Beane" <concord-tech@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: TAC CODES

Tinker         Ship's Engineer
Shabaak        (Vilani for laser) MFD Gunner
Huntress  Marine Commander
Sparky         Ship's Maintenance Tech
Wildcard  Gunnery (named for off duty pursuits)
Blackjack Gunnery (named for off duty pursuits)
Spectre        Fighter Pilot
Hawkeye   Electronics Officer
Wolfman   Fighter Pilot
U.V.      Electronics Officer (tac code was actually his initials)
Night Owl Electronics Officer
Zombie         Remnant - Navy Veteran
Pixie          Short Female Marine
Ice Queen Fighter Pilot (cold as ice personality)
Phoenix        Remnant - Ship's Engineer
Hotwire        Ship's Engineer
Fix-it         Ship's Engineer
Jumper         Ship's Engineer
Topper         Marine NCO
Bulldog        Marine Commander
Rhino          Very Large Marine
Puffer         Marine (city girl almost sent home from basic for lack of
endurance)

Random NPCs
Beer Can,  Walker,  Leather,  Lacey,  Jo-Jo,  Dealer,  Redwave,  O-Mo, 
H.O.,  Dolly,  Warder,  Falcon,  Apple,  Pitfall,  Hassle,  Penny, 
Scarlet,  Black Cat,  Joker,  Ozzie,  Archon,  C-Buzz,  Acey,  Bouncer, 
Barkeep,  Longneck,  Kegger,  Six Pack,  Donner,  Blitzen

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 07:41:49 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Fighters

>Your also assuming that Turret mounted weapons can be used against
>fighters.  This makes no sense.  A ship would have large weapons
>(equivalent to a naval ships Canons) and AA (Point Defense) also a batch
>of missles.  The large weapons would be useless against fighters, since
>they are designed for Capital ship-to-ship battles.  So there only defense
>is AA.  This means that a hell-of-a-lot more fighters are not supperessed
>and make it threw to the target and unload there weapons.  They would
>would then return to ther ESCORTED carriers to rearm while a second wave
>of fighters approach.

Why would turret be useless against fighters. Because they're designed that
way, so that space combat will be exactly like WWII? Sorry but Traveller
isn't StarWars. A fighter at 30 000 klicks will be pretty easy to track
with even a mesom gun spinal mount. Forget about your images of daring
fighter pilots dodging through the barrage to cripple the hapless Japanse
err Zhodani warships.

This is space combat with speed of light weapons that can hit at 30 000 km
or more. If we'd like space combat to resemble WWII then why not introduce
a space analogy to sea state: "space state". And perhaps submarine
anologies: subspace fighters that silently lurk beneath the normal space
waves ;)


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 08:12:41 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Grav Cities in Gas Giants

>Has anyone else on TML read Mr. Anthony's _Bio_of_a_Space_Tyrant_ series?
>In this series, mankind has *numerous* grav cities floating in the
>atmospheres of the gas giants of the solar system.  I find it strange that
>Traveller has postulated numerous grav cities throughout the high-tech
>Imperium, but not one of them floating in the upper atmosphere of a gas
>giant.  Any ideas how come???
>
>Franklin

With J-drives so cheap and N2-O2 planets in abundance most people prefer
nicer worlds than gasgiants to live in. But go ahead and design them.
Grandfather did so why not you? It would be a nice mishap for thos cheap
traders skimming fuel.

- -What do you mean I crashed into a city? It is a gas giant for godsake!
The referee wears that smug smile again.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1132
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Friday, April 4 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1133



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Experience Points?
Re:submarine fighters
Re:Interstellar Empires
System entry standards
Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)
Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters
Re: Boarding range
Re: Experience Points?
Re:Interstellar Empires
Re: System entry standards
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: Fighters
Re: Law School
Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 08:25:27 -0800
From: Harald Budschedl <Harald.Budschedl@mag.linz.at>
Subject: Re: Experience Points?

Jeff Harvey wrote:
> 
> Okay, it's the rookie referee again, with another question that is
> obvious to most of you, but could use a little elaboration for myself.
> 
>         Is there a system for awarding experience points to players?  I guess
> that I would just like to know how other referees award experience
> points, and what is a relative average of experience points to award per
> gaming session.  Again, any thoughts or information are appreciated.
> 
>                                                 Jeff

The new Traveller System HAS experience points (look in the rulebook
under "improving skills"). I use this system though there might be
better ones.

CU
Buddy

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

Date: Fri,  4 Apr 97 05:55:00 GMT 
From: s.johnson107@genie.com
Subject: Re:submarine fighters

> To look at this the other way, which is where I started, are there good
> reasons why we don't have small manned submarine fighters?  Someone
> mentioned that it'd take most or all of the missile space in a boomer.
> I'm not sure I agree with that, but even so, is there some reason beyond
> military tradition why we don't have the submarine equivalent of an
> aircraft carrier?
    Technology, Need and Neccessity.  To make a submarine fighter work you need
an extremely compact power plant, Fusion Plus would work. ;)  Though there has
been some interesting and ingenious work being done with submarines that "fly"
through the water, mostly at the experimental and concept demonstration stage
right now.  The Navy did some work on using lasers (blue-green if memory
serves) at depth to punch through submarine hulls.  Power requirements are a
bitch!  But they do work, power was the problem, and this was done back in the
late seventies, technology may well have caught up to make this practical in
the next few years.
    Which leads us to why do you Need one?  Durring the Cold War?  Yes and the
US Navy did some theoretical and experimental work on the idea.  But who out
there in the oceans do you need a submarine fighter against?  The US Navy has
the Los Angeles Attack boats, the best in the world without question.  Nobody
else has a big enough submarine fleet to bother the US.  There's no compelling
NEED for submarine fighters.
    Now neccessity is another matter, IF we see greater and greater development
of the underwater resources of the planet then submarine fighters may become a
neccessity.  In theory they would be cheaper to build, man and maintain.  But
the neccessity of their development is dependant on other factors.  Political,
economic, social and others.

    That's Real World/Real Life.  IMHO I suspect the development of "flying"
type submarines is inevitable and will eventually lead to a form of Submarine
fighter.  Already the rapid advances in technology are changing the character
and type of warfare the future generations of submariners will wage.  The
Oceans of the planet cover 3/4 of the surface, given how far Humanity has gone
with the 1/4 above water... you have to wonder how well we'll do with the
remaining 3/4!

Stephen

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:50:39 -0500 (EST)
From: ToddMoody@aol.com
Subject: Re:Interstellar Empires

Michael Barry wrote Wed, 2 Apr 1997 22:41:46 +1000 (EST):
...Constellations. A noble house is given the rights to colonise any syst=
em=20
within a particular constellation, as seen from the homeworld (Terra, in=20
this case). The advantages of this: ...<<<

Problem with this is that constellations are only constant when viewed fr=
om
one star system.  Every system would have a different set off constellati=
ons
and it would be unruly to catalog every conceivable variation.  Seems to =
me
that if you can manage a star system and keep political control over it t=
hen
you =93own=94 it.  Squabbling over territory is as old as the oldest prof=
ession.
 No doubt many will still be looking for lebensraum.

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:50:42 -0500 (EST)
From: ToddMoody@aol.com
Subject: System entry standards

To lay out some background, I am a USAF pilot and have done quite abit of
flying throughout the world.  The International Civil Aviation
Organization(ICAO) is made up of over 180 nations and they got together and
devised procedures that would be commonly used for flying within a nations
airspace.  A great idea, but the individual member nations may comply with
some, all or none of the criteria.  

Heck our own planet can't even agree to agree on standard arrival and
departure procedures. Having seen the disparity just on this planet I find it
difficult to believe that developing standards for arrival procedures in each
star system extraordinarily unlikely.  It might make for some interesting
discussion here as to what types of standards might be used and how word gets
out (and not) to the common users (i.e. commercial freight and passenger
carriers and private use spacecraft).  

There was a pioneer aviator (true story), that went around the world and
collected the instrument approaches that were made up for the local airfields
he visited.  After many years he had quite a collection and aviators began
paying him for copies of them.  Word spread and he soon found himself in
business.  The problem that developed was that he didn't have time to fly
every approach he got his hands on the see if it was safe or accurate.  But
this didn't become evidant until many years had passed and his little company
was bought and started publishing the maps for world wide consumption.  I see
room for a myth to develop around a legendary star pilot that charted out the
common arrival procedures at the many hundreds of star systems.  

Discussion is invited.

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:50:40 -0500 (EST)
From: ToddMoody@aol.com
Subject: Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)

Mike Sellers wrote Wed, 02 Apr 1997 07:29:25 -0800:
To look at this the other way, which is where I started, are there good
reasons why we don't have small manned submarine fighters?  Someone
mentioned that it'd take most or all of the missile space in a boomer.  I=
'm
not sure I agree with that, but even so, is there some reason beyond
military tradition why we don't have the submarine equivalent of an
aircraft carrier?  <<<<

The reason we don=92t have them now is that there are no weapons of suffi=
cient
payload or number that could be carried aboard a manportable sub that wou=
ld
do any real damage to a surface vessel.  They would be extremely suceptab=
le
to depth charges as well.  Simply isn=92t feasible at this TL.  There are
always pushes made to make quieter and harder to detect weapon systems bu=
t
the technology to detect them seems to keep pace. =20

IMO space warfare will resemble sub warfare in some aspects, that is unti=
l
you get close enough to shoot at anyone.  It will more resemble surface
carrier group warfare but in 3 dimensions not just 2.=20

 It would seem wise that hard facilities like colonies or space stations
would invest heavily in state-of-the-art detection systems as much as the=
y
could afford it.  Space battles would only happen in system or at a Jump
point as the likelyhood of encountering bandits in deep space would be ne=
arly
zero.=20

Pirate vessels would be forced to making a living on the fringe systems w=
ith
little or no police force that could monitor the system entry points that
would be commonly used among the traders.

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

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 04:33:05 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters

On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Bruce Alan Macintosh wrote:

> >which it can hit the vessel with.  Remember, there are no shields, so each
> >bullet/laser/bomb does as much damage as if they came from an equally
> >large vessel.  Multiply this power by 50 times, or a hundred times (1 for
> >each fighter) and you have an effective, nigh, invincible weapon.  The
> >only defense is, you guessed it, fighters.
> And he's completely wrong.

Evidence please?

> 
> Anyone who's mental image of space combat has fighters swooping along the
> length of giant space dreadnaughts is completely wrong.
> 
> Let's compare 500x10-ton fighters to 1x50,000-ton battlerider 
> (so that Jump drives don't get
> in the way and mess things up.) The battlerider will be just as high-
> acceleration as the fighters for a given amount of money spent on
> maneuver drives. Since the battlerider has a much lower surface-to-volume

This is not economical though, which is the whole point of fighters.  The
American navy could (theoritically) build a Battleship (HS) which could
travel as fast as a speed boat - but why would they?  Its redundent - no
military advantage - and above all else, its expensive, VERY expensive.

So your first supposition is unsupportable.  I hope your argument wasnt
based on it. Lets read on and find out.

> ratio, it will have *much* thicker armour for a given amount of mass/volume
> devoted to armour. The fighters *don't* carry the same weapons as the 
> battleriders, not really - to damage a heavily armoured target you need
> a whopping great meson gun or PA spinal mount, which you can't fit in a 
> ten-ton fighter. The fighter's weapons will bounce off the battlerider.

This logic also doesnt follow in the real world.  Remember, none of us
have been on a Space battleship (Aurora class:) so we can only compare
our theories to real world examples (as close as possible any way).  How
were the Japanese able to destroy the Prince Of Wales and its
sister ship in ww2 just with naval based air power?  

The prince of wales and sister were the best Battleships the british had,
also the newest. most heavily armed and armoured, bristly with AA.  The
japanese lost no planes, the ships were sunk in a matter of hours.  

If a fighter has the right weaponry (For space combat i would say missiles
and space bombs with proxiamety charges) it just doesnt matter how thick
the armour is.  People seem to think fighters are one shot weapons, there
not.  They hit in waves, first waves drops there payload, returns to
carrier, refuels and rearms.  While this is going on the second and third
waves have hit.  A Battleship can only take so much damage from Nuclear
warheads and Fusion/Fission/Anti-Matter bombs.

Armour is a measure of endurance in these sort of battles, not a guarntee
of safety.


> One might argue that the fighters are smaller, possibly more agile (since
> they can rotate faster to change the angle of their thrust) and hence
> harder to hit. However, such advantages only matter at moderate-to-long
> ranges; at short ranges (<30,000km), no amount of agility can stop a good
> closed-loop laser tracking system from hitting. A single hit from a
> laser turret will destroy a fighter, so the fighters (to be effective)
> have to stay at long ranges (not very exciting or heroic) plinking away
> with lasers. You might as well put all the lasers on a battlerider where
> you can protect them with some armour in the first place.
> 

I dont think this is plausiable either.  Your assuming that fighters are
one-hit weapons and that they have no counter measures.  I also think its
absurd that you effectively state that a fighters agility is helpful at
medium to long ranges, but useless at short ranges.  At short ranges is
where it counts.

I would love to see an example of what you said in any modern battle.
Show a battle where a fighters agility works against them at short range.

> In the real world, aircraft won because they were orders of magnitude
> faster than ships, and because they have access to weapons (torpedoes
> and bombs) that have very short ranges - so ships can't use them
> effectively against other ships - but do huge amounts of damage.
> Neither of these are true in Traveller. Traveller fighters aren't aircraft;
> they're speedboats with machine guns. Imagine attacking a dreadnaught
> in a speedboat with a machine gun.

Aircraft won because of speed and agility, and being able to deliver
high-powered explosives without being hit, and being able to do this
repeatedly. 

How wouldnt this hold true in Traveller?

Also, your speed boat analogy is good, but still wrong.  Its still
2-dimensional.

> 
> Even in the Real World, modern point defences have changed the roles of
> aircraft - imagine trying to dive-bomb a modern CG; you'd be eaten
> for breakfast. To have any hope of dropping an actual iron bomb on a ship
> you need to come in at very low level (like in the Falklands) at an
> opponent with highly inadequate point defence (like in the Falklands.)
> There's no analogy to "coming in low" in space...
> 

Thats why AC weaponry has increased in range and accuracy.  I also dont
believe point defense is as effective as you claim.  500 planes swoop down
on a ship, and its dead baby.  Point defense may take down a few, but
the rest are still going to deliver there payload.  


SaHua,

michl

electric RAIN                      http://www.electric-rain.net/


"I ran out of sick days, so I called in dead"

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 00:04:40 -0800
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)
Subject: Re: Boarding range

Hello,
  A couple of quick (if unpopular) observations about
the fighter and boarding debates.  Isn't it important
that solutions be internally consistent?

eg) if near-instantaneous micro-jumps are allowed,
 then what does this imply for unmanned "fighters"
(aka drones/torps) with huge fusion bombs?

eg) if my stealth bus can deliver a boarding party,
why not lead it with Ensign Robby the Robot and his
fusion bomb party favours?

  SFB banned ramming, _except_ for shuttles landing
boarding parties by crashing enemy hangar bays.  They
also allowed transporting boarding parties onto enemy
ships, or nukes into space as mines, but not nukes
onto the enemy ship.  Why?  Waiting for someone to
write it up as a brilliant new tactic?

  If an arbitrary rule (not tech hand-waving) is the
only way out of a seeming contradiction, then maybe
the idea isn't supportable to a sufficiently high
level.

  OTOH, they can simply publish the tech and let the
warmongers figure out what works best.  Jeune Ecole,
anyone?

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 10:12:38 +0200
From: Nicolas LEJEUNE <nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr>
Subject: Re: Experience Points?

At 14:29 03/04/1997 -0500, you wrote:
>Okay, it's the rookie referee again, with another question that is
>obvious to most of you, but could use a little elaboration for myself.
>
>    Is there a system for awarding experience points to players?  I guess
>that I would just like to know how other referees award experience
>points, and what is a relative average of experience points to award per
>gaming session.  Again, any thoughts or information are appreciated.

I use a system comming from WhiteWof RPG (Vampire, Werewolf...)

Each adventure session
End : 1 automatic point
Learning curve : 1 point if the player can explain something he have learned
Heroic : 1 point if the player has takes significant known risks for the
sake of the adventure
Role playing : 1 point if the player has done a good roleplaying

Each Camapgn
End : 1 automatic point
Success : 1 point if the players had mastered their goal

You can multiply the number of point as you want, or adding new sources of
points. In fact there are two others but I don't remeber.

Another system easier to use at the begining is to award point directly
during the game. But no on dices results as many games do. Roleplaying
might be a good way of judgement. 
If a player have done good decisions in a gun fight and so were efficient
(not the dices results) award him immediatly a point in the skill YOU find
approriate to the situation. 
If a player have found a important clue for the adventure give him a point
for INT  (don't hessitate)
Beware of forgetting other players. IMO, the points awards have to be
intuitive and not programmed on the adventure (they go their they have a
point... no good)

Hope this helps
- -----------
Nicolas LEJEUNE
   Engineer, Paris, France
   Traveller (TNE), and WhiteWolf RPG
   Mailto:nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 10:47:11 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re:Interstellar Empires

>Problem with this is that constellations are only constant when viewed from
>one star system.  Every system would have a different set off constellation=
s
>and it would be unruly to catalog every conceivable variation.  Seems to me
>that if you can manage a star system and keep political control over it the=
n
>you =ECown=EE it.  Squabbling over territory is as old as the oldest profes=
sion.
> No doubt many will still be looking for lebensraum.

In defense of the original poster:
This was the Solomanis ways of doing things. They were probably even more
Earth fixated than they are at M0 so the constellations idea works well. A
definition that only makes practical layman sense on earth is perfectly
acceptable.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 10:42:11 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: System entry standards

>Heck our own planet can't even agree to agree on standard arrival and
>departure procedures. Having seen the disparity just on this planet I find it
>difficult to believe that developing standards for arrival procedures in each
>star system extraordinarily unlikely.  It might make for some interesting
>discussion here as to what types of standards might be used and how word gets
>out (and not) to the common users (i.e. commercial freight and passenger
>carriers and private use spacecraft).

Don't forget that our planet today is a balkanized TL 7 backwater slimy
mudhole. One of the advantages of being a member of the Imperium is that
they can dictate stuff such as approach procedures and the member worlds
will comply or their starport gets shut down.

Always remember that the Imperium is NOT like earth and the same could be
said to the guys advocating strict adherance to WWII naval tactis in space
combat.

All this IMHO and of course as ref you are free to decide how it is done in
your universe. there were some articles about this in High Passage under
the heading "Inward clearance" that could shed light on this topic.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 10:54:29 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

>To bring weapons to bear.  If you have 50% of your turrets on the
>top of the hull, and 50% on the bottom, and you *don't* slowly
>rotate, then you never use more than 50% at any given target.  It
>almost always makes more sense to rotate.  In multi-ship battles,
>hiding a facing from the enemy is moot since they are probably at a
>few different facings.

In space combat you shoot at the enemy all the time. The game turns are
only abstractions.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 10:12:44 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

On Thu, 3 Apr 1997 16:03:44 -0700 (MST), you wrote:

> Was that the movie whose really stupid trailer I saw... a F-117
> docks (!) with an airliner?  I saw the trailer and decided it was
> way too dumb to shell out even a biuck for (just based on that
> scene).

Yup.  Worth every penny to see Steven Seagal get blown out of the docking
tube inside the first fifteen minutes of the movie.  All in all, it was
actually a surprisingly good movie.  Check it out on video.

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 10:12:46 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

On Thu, 03 Apr 1997 17:54:41 -0700, you wrote:

>    Except we've already established there's no inherent speed advantage =
in
> space associated with being smaller. So the "flat bed truck" is just as
> likely to be as fast as the sports car.
>=20
>    And even so, given the facts of angular motion, a very small motion in
> close to the center of rotation (where the truck is) results in a very
> large motion further out (where your sportscar is).
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Possibly beyond the capabilities of the grappling vessel's maneuver drive
rating.  Depending on how far away the two ships are, trying to match the
target ship's movements could very well require that the grappling ship
expend more than 6Gs to keep up.

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 10:12:47 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Fighters

On Sat, 5 Apr 1997 00:40:35 +1000 (EST), you wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Merrick Burkhardt wrote:

[Merrick's example of Fighter Swarm vs. Lone Capital Ship snipped]

> Wrong.  Its to simplistic.
>=20
> Your assuming that theres no surprise, which is a major part of any =
naval
> (space) battle.  If you can say "midway" you should also know that the
> americans took the japanese by surprise, and both were carrier fleets.

And the Americans had "radar"... and the Americans had "Magic" (ie: they
had broken the Japanese code ahead of time and Midway was basically an
American ambush).  Weather also played a key role at Midway, as did the
late launching of Japanese aerial reconnaissance (not to mention a
malfunctioning radio on the one Japanese search plane that did locate the
American fleet).  The two sides were hardly evenly matched considering =
all
the facts, and many of these facts don't translate well to Traveller ship
combat.

> Your also assuming that Turret mounted weapons can be used against
> fighters.  This makes no sense.  A ship would have large weapons
> (equivalent to a naval ships Canons) and AA (Point Defense) also a =
batch
> of missles.  The large weapons would be useless against fighters, since
> they are designed for Capital ship-to-ship battles.  So there only =
defense
> is AA.  This means that a hell-of-a-lot more fighters are not =
supperessed
> and make it threw to the target and unload there weapons.  They would
> would then return to ther ESCORTED carriers to rearm while a second =
wave
> of fighters approach.

How far away are these fighters when they fire their missiles?  How do =
they
even get that close without being shot down before hand?  Few fighters
would be able to get within 30,000km (0.1 light-second), since turreted =
or
bay weaponry could easily target and destroy threats at this range.

Since ranges in naval combat are measured in thousands of *yards*, and
ranges in Traveller are measured in thousands of *kilometres*, it would =
be
easy to aim a bulky turret at a small incoming fighter within the range =
of
the turreted weaponry (out to 300,000km, easy).  The turret itself isn't
responsible for precisely aiming the weapon anyways; actuators would move
the laser array only inside the protective turret (which would be much =
less
massive and easier to manipulate).  Granted, they might be hard pressed =
to
target something inside a few hundred metres, but a fighter could only =
stay
at that range for a micro second (considering the speed it would have to =
be
moving at in order to survive to get that close).  Missiles launched by
such fighters would detonate almost immediately, destroying the fighter =
as
well.

> Thirdly, your assuming that the fighters have pee-shooters for =
weaponry.
> This also makes no sense because they would be useless.  They would be
> carrying a barrage of missile/torpedo based weaponry, which would do =
much
> more that just 'scrape the hull'.

Lasers would be pea-shooters only because the fighter's powerplant would
not be able to power the larger lasers necessary to punch through heavy
armour.

If their primary armament was missiles, it would make much more sense to
fire them from further away (where the fighter would be at less of a =
risk).
That is the whole point of missiles now-a-days, with some munitions =
having
stand-off ranges of over 100 kilometres.  By releasing its missiles from
further away, you would increase the odds of the fighter surviving by
giving the target more to shoot at.  If you delayed launching missiles
until the last possible moment, the enemy only has to fire at one target
instead of three or five to destroy all of your missiles.

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 11:23:36 +0100
From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Law School

"Joseph M. Saul" <jmsaul@us.itd.umich.edu> writes:

[re J.D. degree]
> It's also a three-year program, as opposed to the two years in the
> proposal.

Traveller simplification.  Like having a Master's degree as a 2 year 
prerequisite for a 2 year PhD after a 4 year college degree.  No 
accelerated programs, no going from 3 year degree to 3 year PhD,
etc. (which is certainly possible).

> And do you actually know any American nationals who have
> gotten an LL.M. since, say, 1950?

Sure.  But only from U.K. universities 8-).

Nick

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 11:21:33 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)

On Sat, 5 Apr 1997 00:27:40 +1000 (EST), you wrote:

> Economies
> ---------
> Unless economics are really different in the Imperium as opposed to =
earth
> today, it will definetly be more cost effective to build a high speed,
> well armed, highly maneuvrable 10t Fighter as  opposed to a Dreadnaught
> with the same capabilities.

Not so.  It is cheaper to armour a dreadnaught that it is to armour a
fighter.  You are also forgetting that fighters need carriers, a
further expense that makes a fully loaded carrier *more* expensive
(and therefore, not nearly as cost effective).

> Effectiveness
> -------------
> How effective would a fighter be?  I think quite effective.  Militaraly=
 a
> 10t fighter is more expendable then a 100,000t Battleship.  Also 10t
> fighters would be easier to replace.

Of course a 10t fighter is MORE expendable than a 100,000t battleship!
One costs *significantly* more than the other!

> Fighters would be quite versatile as well.  Fighters could more easily
> (and cheaply) be used for planetary warfare, so there dual role would =
be
> valuable.

Granted.  But fighters cannot perform many of the roles that larger
ships perform (like extended missions, transport missions, boarding
actions, prolonged planetary bombardment, etc.).

> Some people have argued that they couldnt carry the firepower to effect=
 a
> Battleship.  I disagree.  Stick a fusion bomb or Fission torpedo on =
these
> babies (the equavilent to a Torpedo) and they could wreck havoc on any
> heavily armoured vessel.

Nuclear missiles are expensive, and easily defeated by nuclear dampers
(giving those nuclear damper turrets-- that were otherwise just
sitting there-- something to do).  And if used, the fighter would be
vapourized in the blast... this is based on one of your earlier
postings stating that fighters would release their missiles inside the
minimum effective ranges of the target's offensive and defensive
weaponry.

> Also, the ability to mass hundreds and maybe even thousands of these
> babies would make them an irresistable force.  No matter how big a
> battleship is or how heavily armed or armoured it is no way it would
> have the Point Defense (AA) to handle such an onslaught.  No one could
> conceivably argue (effectively) that a battleship could handle 100 or a
> thousand fusion torpedos/missles.

I'm (we're?) not trying to.  I am trying to explain the effectiveness
of two *equally balanced* sides in a Traveller space combat, one
composed of fighters and one composed of a single Capital ship.  Only
under such circumstances can you determine how cost effective fighters
are when compared to a single larger ship.

By attacking a Capital ship with a swarm of fighters costing two or
three times as much, all you are stating is that "the side with the
bigger, more expensive fleet wins".  You could just as easily replace
the fighters by a half dozen Capital ships based on this argument.

> After the battle, whos won both militaraly and economically?  The guy =
who
> lost the 100,000t Battleship or the side that lost 100 fighters?  Dont
> forget, lives are generally more expendable then hardware.

Wrong!  It takes twenty years to breed a pilot, and only a few days to
replace his/her fighter.

> >> Now, in the REAL world (or a world like Traveller which is realistic=
  =3D
> >>enougth)
> >> The Fighter is a Highly effective strike weapon.  They can out =
maneuver
> >> any large frontline ship, they can zoom in and target important =
systems
> >
> >It's kinda hard to "zoom in and target important systems" in the
> >Traveller universe.  Since you are dealing with weapons that target
> >and engage at the speed of light, anything within a light second is
> >subject to being destroyed with remarkable ease.
>=20
> I disagree, your thinking in terms of 25th century offense vs 20th =
century
> defense.  If a fighter can fly as fast as the "speed of light" (which =
it
> cant) it is only logical to assume it would have the guidance, tracking
> and maneuverability to cope with that speed, and the enemy (all things
> being equal) would have the defense to match it.=20

You're arguing logic versus something you just said wasn't possible
(fighters travelling near the speed of light).  This doesn't make any
sense to me.

A fighter 30,000km away from a target is 1/10th of a light-second
away.  No amount of electronics or jinking will prevent a laser from
striking the fighter when it only takes a tenth of a second for the
beam to span the distance.

> >> (engines, gun bays, the bridge) and if you have enougth of them, no =
=3D
> >>ship,
> >> no matter how much ant-aircraft they have, will be able to cope.
> >
> >To get that close, you would probably have to overwhelm the target
> >with *more* fighter tonnage than that of the target.  It would then be
> >unfair to compare 40 50t fighters to a lone 1,000t escort, either in
> >cost or combat effectiveness.
>=20
> Why do you say that?  What are you comparing it to? Have you flown in a
> battleship?  All you can logically compare it to is a naval battle.  In=
 a

No you can't.  This is moot, since we have already concluded in other
posts that modern day naval/air combat is not a fair comparison to
Traveller-style space combat (ie: Traveller dreadnaughts can be built
to be just as "fast" as fighters).

> naval battle the number of attacking craft are usually in the hundreds,=
 if
> there land based attacker, there in the thousands.  I can tell you now,
> that the planes will come back with a lot less damage then the =
completely
> destroyed capital ship.  The aircraft will fight again, but the ship =
will
> not.

Hundreds? Thousands? You seem to be saying that fighters would be the
"king" of Traveller space combat, yet your arguments only talk about
overwhelming the opponent with massive numbers.  In any situation,
this will most certainly be true.  By your own arguments, it is not
the effectiveness of the "fighter" itself, but the effectiveness of
their "massive deployment" that would result in such lop-sided
victories as you mention.

> >Capital ships don't just defend with offensive weaponry (ie: point
> >defence laser fire you consider anti-aircraft).  Active and passive
> >defences such as sandcasters and screens are also at their disposal--
> >defences that fighters usually lack.  Larger ships are also usually
> >more heavily armoured, with redundant back-ups.  The Frozen Watch can
> >also be used to quickly replace losses on a capital ship, while a
> >fighter without a pilot is pretty much out of the combat.
>=20
> So, with all these frozen watchs and redundent systems, you still think
> that fighters are not as econimical as Battleships?  Using ww2 squadron
> sizes, i would say 1 carrier with 250 planes could take out that
> battleship.  The planes would live to fight another day, the battleship
> is permeantly lost.

250 PLANES !?!  Check your history books again.

A modern carrier might have approximately 60 or 70 different aircraft
on board, but they are not all capable of performing the same mission.
You might have a dozen or so F-14s (air superiority), maybe two dozen
=46/A 18s (ground or air attack), a six-pack of Intruders (bombers),
Vikings (ASW), EW aircraft (jamming), and helicopters (ASW, search &
rescue), as well as one or two EWACS (early warning radar).

> >Additionally, it is hard to find pilots willing to go into a situation
> >where there is an extremely high likelihood of them being killed.  By
> >overwhelming the target, you are doing so knowing that many of your
> >pilots won't be coming back.  With both sides being *equally matched*,
> >morale is probably higher on the capital ship.
>=20
> I disagree, show me an historical example.  Name one naval battle where=
 a
> battleship with out aircover went into battle with a carrier and won? =
Show
> me these high morale marines of yours?  From ww2 to modern times, a
> battleship would be going on a suicide mission against the carrier.  =
And
> your telling me the Battleship would have higher morale knowing they =
had
> been sentenced to death.  Not likely.

I specifically said *equally matched*, yet you reply with a scenario
that clearly isn't.  This whole thread started about the effectiveness
of fighters in the Traveller universe, yet your replies are mostly
based on latter 20th century air/naval combat, as well as massive
overkill attacks.  In an equally matched Traveller space combat, I'd
rather be behind the Capital ship's substantial armour (within easy
access of a sickbay, if necessary) than in a small fighter less than
30,000 km away being fired upon by laser batteries with ROFs of 800
per Combat Round.

Using any of the official (and unofficial) space combat rule systems
for Traveller, fighters are not much more than target practice at
point blank range for the crew of a Capital ship.  These crews would
be shielded by the ship's heavier armour, while the incoming fighters
would be facing multiple laser batteries capable of firing nearly once
per second (with a single hit most likely causing a critical hit),
plus sandcasters and-- if you are still using CT-- repulsors.

You keep repeating that a fighter swarm could easily take out a
Traveller Capital ship if enough fighters are used.  This is no basis,
however, for your argument that states that the fighter (singular)
would be the dominant force in a Traveller-style space combat.  Again,
all you are really arguing is that "the better funded side wins".

> Not to mention the fact that two sides are rarely evenly matched, so =
your
> example is fraudelent.

Your *whole argument* is invalid, since you keep comparing Traveller
space combat with modern day air/naval combat.  They are not the same.
Stick to the Traveller universe.

> > Add to this the fact that each fighter has Canons and, maybe even =
bombs
> > which it can hit the vessel with.  Remember, there are no shields, so=
 =3D
> >each
> > bullet/laser/bomb does as much damage as if they came from an equally
> > large vessel.  Multiply this power by 50 times, or a hundred times (1=
 =3D
> >for
> > each fighter) and you have an effective, nigh, invincible weapon.  =
The
> > only defense is, you guessed it, fighters.
> >
> >>You seem to be forgetting that a large capital ship could have about
> >>50 times (or 100 times) as many weapons as a single fighter, =
levelling
> >>the playing field once again (well, maybe not perfectly level :)
>=20
> Not really, since most of these weapons will be designed for larger =
ship
> targeting.  I cant remember the last time a saw a spinal mounted Meson
> canon open fire and hit a fighter.  Can you?

According to Traveller rules, there is no distinction of weapons
specifically designed to target large or small vessels.  Actually, the
spinal mount is the *only* weapon that would be incapable of hitting
an enemy fighter (except by luck).

> >Also, i would assume that a fighter could get to its top speed a whole
> >lot
> >faster than a large ship.>>
> >
> >That's all a matter of Gs of acceleration, "top speed" in space is =
fairly
> >close to the speed of light, so there isn't any real top speed. =
However,
> >beyond certain speeds it becomes difficult to engage in space combat,
> >since
> >no matter how much accleration you can manage, you're still pretty =
much
> >traveling in a straight line.
>=20
> This is an incorrect assumption.  Top speed is whatever a space craft =
has
> been built to go upto.  Im sure light speed isnt one of them (mayb =
absurd
> speed:).  Each tech level logically would have an upper limit of the
> absolute fastest speed it can build engines to.

What upper limit?  In an atmosphere, vehicles have an upper limit on
the speeds that they can travel based on the fact that drag increases
with speed.  As speed increases, the vehicle requires more and more
energy to counter this drag.  Planes, trains, and automobiles all have
engines that are designed to provide a certain amount of acceleration.
You will eventually arrive at a point where the engine's power cannot
counter the drag.  This is that vehicle's maximum speed.

In space, however, we have no drag.  Thrust remains constant
throughout the spacecraft's acceleration (assuming an unlimited fuel
supply, of course).  Things only get interesting when the vessel
begins to approach the speed of light (where it would gain in mass--
thereby reducing its acceleration).

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

To conclude:

If you want to prove to me (using Traveller ship combat rules) that
fighter swarms are effective vs. lone Capital ships, stay away from
20th century air/naval combat comparisons and keep both forces equally
matched.  That way, the true effectiveness of the fighter will be made
clear (and not the effectiveness of an overwhelming number of
fighters).

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1133
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Friday, April 4 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1134



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Fighters (long)
First Survey and Massilia Sector (longish)
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: Submarine Fighters
Re: Submarine fighters
Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
Re: Space fighters
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really)

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 23:39:59 +1200
From: Andrew Vallance <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Fighters (long)

>Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 00:27:40 +1000 (EST)
>From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
>Subject: Fighters - a response (LONG)

>Okay, here are all the fighter related email i have read compiled in one
>big email.  Before i begin i would like to make a few things clear.  

>A) Im using the ship/fighter-spaceship/Spacefighter anaology.  I think
>this is the most appropriate, but it still has its flaws.  I think its the
>best, unless someone has been in a real space battle and can tell us
>otherwise.

I think fighters in traveller would be more analogous to FAC's. Small fast
maneuverable packing a big wallop. However one should be aware of the very
real disadvantages of such craft: virtualy no defences, very limited EW
capacity and very poor targeting.

>b) Spacefighters are cool.  So im going to be biased anyways:)

Have to agree on that point :*) Fighters are way cool

>c) Shields make a major difference in my opnion.  In a universe with
>shields, fighters (10t pee-shooters) are useless unless the shields are
>pathetic or the fighters have substantial fire power.  So the next premise
>is that shields (Star Trek style) dont exist or are not very common.

>So, the question is do Space Fighters make sense?

>Economies
>- ---------
>Unless economics are really different in the Imperium as opposed to earth
>today, it will definetly be more cost effective to build a high speed,
>well armed, highly maneuvrable 10t Fighter as  opposed to a Dreadnaught
>with the same capabilities.  Also, lets not forget that worlds just
>begining an interstellar empire would find it much easier switching an
>already established industry of atmospheric fighters to space bourne
>fighters, then building huge battleships from scratch.  Though i'll
>concede the last point is not relevent to established empires like the
>Imperium.

You are making a good point. Many emerging worlds will choose to go
with fighters for economic reasons as well as tactical reasons. The
Juene Ecole of space :*).

>Effectiveness
>- -------------
>How effective would a fighter be?  I think quite effective.  Militaraly a
>10t fighter is more expendable then a 100,000t Battleship.  Also 10t
>fighters would be easier to replace.

The fighter is, the pilot isn't. This one fact is a vital consideration.
To be effective a fighter would require a very well trained crew. They
just don't have the size to mount the sensors of a big ship and their
crews aren't large enough for any slack.

>Fighters would be quite versatile as well.  Fighters could more easily
>(and cheaply) be used for planetary warfare, so there dual role would be
>valuable.

So can a battleship, it sits up high with good defenses against planetry
based fire and shoots down. Very effective. A fighter on the other hand
has to go down to where atmospheric interceptors (more effective than
general purpose space fighters) can engage.

However I would agree that in interface work fighters would be in their
element. If your going to meet fighters anywhere it will be here.

>Some people have argued that they couldnt carry the firepower to effect a
>Battleship.  I disagree.  Stick a fusion bomb or Fission torpedo on these
>babies (the equavilent to a Torpedo) and they could wreck havoc on any
>heavily armoured vessel.

Carrying a weapon is very different from being able to target with it.
The biggest weapon in the world is of little use if you can't hit with it.
In space combat the velocity are going to so great that you're going to
have very short engagement times. Therefore you are going to need some
very effective targeting and control; and there will be a minimum size craft
required to mount it.

>Also, the ability to mass hundreds and maybe even thousands of these
>babies would make them an irresistable force.  No matter how big a
>battleship is or how heavily armed or armoured it is no way it would
>have the Point Defense (AA) to handle such an onslaught.  No one could
>conceivably argue (effectively) that a battleship could handle 100 or a
>thousand fusion torpedos/missles.

A battleship (100,000Td+) could quite concievably handle several hundred
missile attacks and probably absorb quite a few that get through. Plus
battleships wouldn't operate individually, they'd operate as part of an
intergrated task group with significant small escorts, greatly increasing
their survivability.

>After the battle, whos won both militaraly and economically?  The guy who
>lost the 100,000t Battleship or the side that lost 100 fighters?  Dont
>forget, lives are generally more expendable then hardware.

Most certainly not, especially for pilots! Hardware is expendable, lives
are not. Pilots are always an elite, you can't throw them away, if only
for the morale considerations. Remember in space the recovery rate for
pilots who's fighters are lost is going to be close to nil.

>Another poster made the point that even in modern naval warfare planes are
>not very effective against modern Point Defense.  I disagree.  If this
>were so why was the last great Battleship engagement was France, 1940?
>Also, why do modern Navies still rely on Carriers and land based aircraft
>over battleships?  Because no matter how good or how massed your point
>defense is, it wont hit everytime.  Fighters will get threw.

The hstorical reason for the supremacy of the carrier is very simple, it
can be summed up in one word: Range. A battleship is capable of absorbing
far more damage than a carrier, can carry far better defences and can
fight in conditions which will leave a carrier floundering. The only
advantage the carrier has is range. A battleship can engage targets maybe
40Km away, a carrier 400Km away. In space this advantage is much less.
Plus much of the aircrafts advantages depend on recoving a significant
number of lost crews, which isn't going to happen in space.

Oh and BTW the last classic battleship dual was in the Pacific in 1944.

>>> Now, in the REAL world (or a world like Traveller which is realistic  =
>>>enougth)
>>> The Fighter is a Highly effective strike weapon.  They can out maneuver
>>> any large frontline ship, they can zoom in and target important systems

>>It's kinda hard to "zoom in and target important systems" in the
>>Traveller universe.  Since you are dealing with weapons that target
>>and engage at the speed of light, anything within a light second is
>>subject to being destroyed with remarkable ease.

>I disagree, your thinking in terms of 25th century offense vs 20th century
>defense.  If a fighter can fly as fast as the "speed of light" (which it
>cant) it is only logical to assume it would have the guidance, tracking
>and maneuverability to cope with that speed, and the enemy (all things
>being equal) would have the defense to match it.

A big ship can put its critical systems at its core. Making them all but
impossible to hit. You will be able to hurt a ship by hitting its vulnerable
surface systems, but your unlikely to kill it. What you can do however is
soften it up for an easy kill by a bigger ship.

>>> (engines, gun bays, the bridge) and if you have enougth of them, no =
>>>ship,
>>> no matter how much ant-aircraft they have, will be able to cope.

>>To get that close, you would probably have to overwhelm the target
>>with *more* fighter tonnage than that of the target.  It would then be
>>unfair to compare 40 50t fighters to a lone 1,000t escort, either in
>>cost or combat effectiveness.

>Why do you say that?  What are you comparing it to? Have you flown in a
>battleship?  All you can logically compare it to is a naval battle.  In a
>naval battle the number of attacking craft are usually in the hundreds, if
>there land based attacker, there in the thousands.  I can tell you now,
>that the planes will come back with a lot less damage then the completely
>destroyed capital ship.  The aircraft will fight again, but the ship will
>not.

The fighter/ship analogy is not a good one, a far better one is FAC/ship.
space fighters don't have the massive speed advantage. Throw 100+ Osa II
against a Iowa plus escorts and the Iowa wins. Space fighters won't be able
to do the hit and run that modern aircraft rely on against ships.


>So who won the battle both economically and militaraly?  The guy with the
>air power.  Once again, im making an analogy between ships and space
>vessels.

Space fighters are not airpower, they just don't have the same advantages.
They are torpedo boats or FAC's. During the last years of the 19th and early
years of the 20th centuries the Germans and French both invested heavily in
this theory, it didn't work. The defence was too simple, bigger craft
designed to take them out (the destroyer).

>>Additionally, it is hard to find pilots willing to go into a situation
>>where there is an extremely high likelihood of them being killed.  By
>>overwhelming the target, you are doing so knowing that many of your
>>pilots won't be coming back.  With both sides being *equally matched*,
>>morale is probably higher on the capital ship.

>I disagree, show me an historical example.  Name one naval battle where a
>battleship with out aircover went into battle with a carrier and won? Show
>me these high morale marines of yours?  From ww2 to modern times, a
>battleship would be going on a suicide mission against the carrier.  And
>your telling me the Battleship would have higher morale knowing they had
>been sentenced to death.  Not likely.

Historical examples of surface ships vs carrier where the surface forces
won:
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau against Glorious
Japanese against the TF77 at Samar

Historically carriers lived in dread of being engaged by surface forces,
that's one of the main reasons why their escorts where heavy with cruisers
and battleships. The mere mention of a surface task force nearby was
enough to make even the most bull headed carrier commander (Halsey springs
to mind) pack up and run. When carriers are engaged by surface forces, the
carrier losses. Carriers rely almost entirely on their ability to engage
the enemy before they can be engaged.

>Not to mention the fact that two sides are rarely evenly matched, so your
>example is fraudelent.

"Be there firstest with the mostest" (I can't remember who said that, but
it does pretty much sum up warfare).

>>>You seem to be forgetting that a large capital ship could have about
>>>50 times (or 100 times) as many weapons as a single fighter, levelling
>>>the playing field once again (well, maybe not perfectly level :)

>Not really, since most of these weapons will be designed for larger ship
>targeting.  I cant remember the last time a saw a spinal mounted Meson
>canon open fire and hit a fighter.  Can you?

Yes, but battleships would carry comparitevly few big guns, most of their
weaponry would be smaller weapons to keep fighters and other smaller ships
at bay. The big guns would be truely impressive, but they would have a
very respectable secondary armarment.

>>Also, i would assume that a fighter could get to its top speed a whole
>>lot
>>faster than a large ship.>>

Not true. The acceleration will be similiar. The fighter's advantage will
be maneuverability. A smaller ship will turn better. In traveller space
combat is likely to be a series of high speed passes. The fighter's big
advantage is that it can pass and turn for it's next attack better.

Fighters have a place in space combat as part of an intergrated task force.
Your fighters can soften up a target for an easy kill or finish off cripples.
It is better to regard them as the rough equivelants of early 20th century
torpedo boats. But they wouldn't be the beloved 10Td single place fighter,
they'd be much bigger (start at 50Td) and probably have a crew of 2-4. I'd
call them missile boats.

  Andrew etc.
    a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz

****************************************************************************
  Be pure, Be strong, Behave
****************************************************************************

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 15:36:54 +0200
From: Carlos Alos-Ferrer <alos@merlin.fae.ua.es>
Subject: First Survey and Massilia Sector (longish)

     I finally received Milieu Zero and First Survey... well, I am not
blaming IG for the delay, because I am 'overseas' and I was not able to
order them immediately after release, but, anyway, it has been a long
time reading all the comments in the TML and not being able to say
anything.
     So, now, my time has come <g>... just a few general words, and I will
review First Survey in a sector I know: Massilia.

     Milieu Zero seems great. To begin with, it has been great to see
my name among the rumormongers <G>. And now I can see that really
M:0 has a distinctive flavor... a very different Imperium, at least very
different from the M:1100 one. The Zhunastu school of contact is really
interesting: manipulate all those worlds into the Imperium, and make a
profit from every step. Cleon must have had a Hiver teacher.
     Unfortunately, the references of the text do not match the FS
data of Core that is included in M:0. The astrographical references ('one
subsector rimward from Sylea', 'two subsectors spinward from Sylea')
match the T4 rulebook Core subsector, that seems to be non-canon now,
and not the FS one. And, well, there are all the already discussed
problems with the UWPs of the Chanestin Kingdom, etc.
     What is a real pity is the fact that M:0 does not really fit with First
Survey as a whole. How many worlds are there suitable for a campaign
following the contact scheme? For the PCs to be "Visitors form the
Stars", the world should have starport X, and, well, there are no X
starports in the nine sectors. I suppose the E starports have taken their
place, but there are not much of them either.
     And, well, I thought M:0 should provide the general background,
and it does pretty well, but I also thought FS should provide the specific
flavor, but that's not the case. Thousands of UWPs, but no summaries.
What is the date? Which worlds are Imperial, where are the influence
zones? Not to speak of the BIG Gob-Law level mistake. And a big
problem is that the maps are totally useless to get a general picture,
without the starports. OK, the players should not know them, but we refs
want to know the aspect of a zone... is that A starport in that barren world
isolated, or is near a hi pop world? Check half a dozen UWPs in three
different pages to find the answer.

     The sector I know in more detail is Massilia. I treasure the 1120
data, continue to develop the Rebellion and Collapse effects, and was
very eager to put my hands on the Year Zero data. The 1120 stats were
published in Knightfall, a GDW publication whose copyright is now
property of FFE, so one should expect some compatibility. Even more,
given that the Massilia Library Data published in TD 11 and reprinted in
Knightfall showed data relevant for Milieu Zero.
     From inspection of the Massilia data, I deduced the rule used for
changing or not changing names: If the world is Hi Pop in 1120, then the
name is not changed in FS. If not, it is changed. Has anybody noticed if
this is the general rule? We could argue about the reasons, but, well, it's
already done...
     There are general inconsistencies. It is not clear which date
(even which century) the data corresponds to. Too developed to be Year
Zero, for instance. I suppose we could take the UWPs as some sort of
average over the years 0-200, but then they are not really useful.

     But there are some specific problems. Let me list a few, just in
case FS gets fixed and somebody cares.

     1) THE REBIN EMPIRE. Quote Knightfall: "The Rebin Empire is
a pocket empire long since reabsorbed into the Imperium, but
maintaining a disctintive local culture. Rebin (0312) is the homeworld of
a highly technological, matriarchal culture that settled the inhospitable
systems around itself in the latter part of the Long Night".
     So, it should be a pocket empire in Year Zero, right?. Problem:
Rebin (now Ande) is Barren. Pop exp=0, Pop mult=0. Well, in 1120,
quoting Knightfall again, "the colony worlds hold the bulk of the
"empire"'s population, while the pleasant homeworld is artificially
restricted to the estates of ruling nobles and their servants". In 1120, this
means Pop=4. OK, fix it saying that the homeworld has already been
restricted to the nobles and, as they do not live there permanently, the
computed Pop is really 0. But it is a bit forced. The most probable
explanation is that nobody cared when rerolling the data.

     2) ANAMONI. Quote Knightfall: "Anamoni (1510) was settled in
the late 400s, soon after the First Survey located mineral resources
buried far beneath the planet's icy shroud".
     So, it should not be settled in Year Zero. Problem: Anamoni
(now Aankhi An) has 20 million inhabitants... that's going to be difficult to
fix. Is the planet going to be depopulated and re-settled later?

     3) SHIG. In FS, Shig (0510) is an Ancient site and has an
incredible population of 400,000 million (400 billion for you americans),
more than 1/4 of the total population of the sector, and almost the
population of the whole Vland sector. Clearly, a VERY important world..
In Knightfall, Shig (then Cluseret) has only 70 million inhabitants and is
not an Ancient site anymore. Okay, 1,100 years is a lot of time, but
either the world has lost an average of 360 million inhabitants per year
during more than a millennia, or there has been a real catastrophe, a
major event in the history of the Imperium. You don't lose 400,000
million people (ans an Ancient site) in the blink of an eye. Well, this has
to be delliberate, because Pop B cannot be rolled under the rules, right?.

     4) SHIWONEE. The Geonee homeworld, now called Asadug
(1430), has now pop A (40,000 million). In 1120, it has pop 8. What a
pity that TD 11 write-up of the world stated that "The planetary
population has stabilized around the present figure for the last 200,000
years (...) Almost all species of life on Shiwonee have evolved with
some form of mass migration, and the Geonee culture allows the
humans this same necessary survival tactic".
     So Pop A does not really fit in the scene. The 200,000 years
stability figure could be a typo, I guess, but, anyway, you cannot have
40,000 million people following the temperate zone in a permanent mass
migration. I have already started to build up a story of this, based on
partial wheather control and orbital stations, as you can see in the
Geonee Timeline and the Milieu Zero Setting, in the Geonee Online
Sourcebook.

     5) MURCIA (2109). Hipop in 1120, it has just 80 inhabitants in
Year Zero. The problem is that, according to Knightfall, the world has a
detailed, distinctive history, with Solomani colonists (I guessed that:
Murcia is the name of a province just south of mine here in Spain), and a
Vilani culture which "allowed the locals to survive" through the Long
night, before the planet "joined the Third Imperium". Well, they did not
survive very well, right? It should have been a curious situation, 80
people joining the Third Imperium as the only survivors of the Long
Night...

     6) STELLAR TYPES. Uhhh... can Stellar types change in 1,100
years?. Nilton (1239) has a star F1 V in Knightfall, but back in FS, the
system (now Kiig Ki) exhibits an F1 VI star. Can a VI star change to V in
1,100 years? Have any other stellar types been also changed? Well, let's
pretend its a typo, but I would be worried if there are hundreds of minor
stellar changes, not involving the "Dwarf/Not Dwarf" question.

     That's enough for now. I do not really know what to do with the
FS data for Massilia. I do not like the general aspect of the UWPs, but I
hesitate to jump to my own alternate universe so early. Well... I am
going to fix at least Shokee and Shiwonee subsectors (the main Geonee
area, of course ;-) )
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Alos-Ferrer                          E-mail: Alos@merlin.fae.ua.es
Dpt. Fundamentos del Analisis Economico     Phn: (34) 6 5903400, Ext. 3226
Universidad de Alicante                     Fax: (34) 6 5903685
03071-Alicante (Spain)                      "Thursuth gha kvaekh?"
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 02:49:41 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

In mail you write:

>>Actually, that may not be right. I seem to recall something about each
>>weapon firing 10 times per combat round, so the rotation may be 10 rev's
>>per combat round. I don't have the rules in front of me. Can anyone
>>confirm?
>
> Okay, I can concede to these reasonings. However a ship turning 2-10 times
> with in 20 minutes is not a very fast operation. I fire some guns, turn the
> ship fire again, do a sensor check, make sure the targets still there, fire
> the guns and then rotate. 

Because you've spent all your life in an atmosphere and at the bottom
of a gravity well, you have a distorted notion of physics.

In space (ie 99.999999% of the universe), once you start the ship
spinning it'll *stay* spinning until something is done to *stop* the
spinning. 

So it's far more efficient to just start the "slow roll" and let it
contibue until combat is over. The computers can easily correct for it
in both the sensor readings and in the aiming of the weapons. 

On the other hand, unless you are *very* close, or have *exceptional*
sensors, you can't "correct" for the spin of a target, because while
it's not that hard to measure doppler shift on radar signals and the
like to tell how *fast* the target is spinning, determining *which way*
it is spinning is a *lot* harder. Hard enough that I don't see it being
a feature of combat sensors. 

Besides, what few "corrections" you coul make would be pretty
meaningless except at *very* short ranges.

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

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 02:15:01 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

In mail you write:

> The same thing is operating in Traveller space combat.  The fastest
> fighter still has only Maneuver-6, the same as the fastest
> battleship.  It generally has better agility (under the High Guard
> system, anyway), but it can't accelerate any faster. 

Wrong. Even if you keep the 6g drive limit, please note that in M0,
g-comp is limited to *3g* at TL12. So a fighter can run at 6g because
the pilot is taking the 3 "uncompensated" g on his back. In a ship,
it'd be almost impossible to get around the ship with the same
acceleration. 

Heck, going by real world test results, the pilot should be able to hit
13 g or better (10g or better uncompensated) for minutes at a time.
That makes dodging things a *lot* easier.

It's not like fighter aircraft where the g-forces run head-to-toe. 

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

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 03:59:12 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Submarine fighters

In mail you write:

>>The environment is just *too* different. You can't draw many (if any)
>>useful analogies between space and submarines.
>
> 1) Self-contained life-support habitats

That's an *internal* item. I was referring more to *externals*.

> 2) Environments very hostile to human life

Actually the subs are in a *far* more hostile environment.

> 3) Large, expensive vessels requiring regular maintenance and 
> specialized skills to keep in prime shape

Again, an "internal".

> 4) Communication problems/lags require a high degree of 
> autonomy

Yes and no. The subs *can't* communicate without giving away their
position. A spaceship can't *hide* it's position, and the commlags
aren't that great except in to cases. Frst, intersystem jumps. Second,
travell between planets. Anyplace "near" a planet and they have quite
reasonable comm-lags, and no reason not to.

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

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 04:11:11 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors

In mail you write:

>
> In a message dated 4/3/97 7:26:16 AM, David J. Golden wrote:
>
> <<Normally, to rotate clockwise, you'd fire thrusters 2 and 3. If you fire
> only one, say #2, the net effect is BOTH a clockwise torque AND a downward
> force. Simple mechanics.>>
>
> You can rotate the ship all you want, and it works great if you're standing
> still, but if you have any significant forward momentum, jiggling will do
> nothing for evasion, since you're course is set until you burn main
> thrusters.

Sorry, but since you are trying to *dock* with him, you've got it
exactly *backwards*. You'l have already *matched* the forward motion.
It's the movements from the attitude thrusters that matter, because
you've already *cancelled* any other *relative* motion. It doesn't
*matter* that both of you are flying at a zillion km/sec relative to
somebody else, only what your motions relative to *each other* are.

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

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 03:45:53 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Space fighters

In mail you write:

> Fighters should be spherical for best turning (attitude) ability and also
> as you don't know from where you'll be hit might as well have equal armor
> all round.

Half right.

The fighter should have a compact structure. *But* "thrusters" belong
on outriggers to give more leverage (moment arm) when turning. And you
might as well hang some ordinance from the struts. It saves space. Just
like the "wings" on attack choppers. More hardpoints.

And of course you have sensors out on the struts as well, for the extra
resolution the seperation gives you. 

I can't think of any good reasons to put beam weapons on the struts but
maybe there is one. 

So the Babylon 5 fighter designs actually make a fair amount of sense.
The ones in the episode I just watched had the main engines at the ends
of struts in an "X" shape, with a spherical main body. Reasonable
design, as it lets you use the main engines to rotate the ship *fast*. 

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

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 03:08:20 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

In mail you write:

>> Again, a ship with two laser turrets on port and starboard sides (ala
>> Far Trader) couldn't use both to hit a ship on one side *unless* the
>> ship is rotating.
>> 
>
> Yes but we're dealing with a 20 minute combat round. If I'm the
> pilot of the Free Trader, I fire with the laser on the enemy side,
> flip the ship and fire with the other laser. I don't need to be
> _constantly_ rotating.

Sure you do. It takes energy to *start* rotating and to *stop*
rotating. It takes none to *continue* rotating. It's not like there's
friction with something to slow you down. 

So you just put some spin on the ship and let it *keep* spinning.
Continually starting and stopping the spin would be a nightmare.
 
> The original question asked about rotating all the time. The above
> paragraph IS a good reason to rotate, but only in combat. What about
> when you're not in combat?

Sure, then you don't need to. But once you start rotating, it's easiest
to *stay* rotating until you are sure the fight is over. *one* blast of
the attitude jets, or spin/despin command to the gyros. Then you just
"coast" until you send the command (opposite of the previous one) to
stop the spin. And each uses up the same amount of energy.

> The placement of sensor arrays should be done in such a manner as to
> eliminate the need for this sort of thing and to reduce the size of 
> the shadow. And once that shadow extends to less than 25,000 km away
> from the ship, it doesn't matter anymore because any approaching ship
> is automatically detected (in MT rules).

As noted in another message, a ship won't have a sensor shadow that
extends as much as a hull length from it. It's too unsafe for both long
and short range maneuvering.

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

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 03:29:05 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)

In mail you write:

> If that's pretty much people's thinking, then I have another question...
> one other advantage that airplanes have over surface craft is that they can
> move in 3 dimensions instead of just 2 (plus their speed, agility, etc.).
> So to extend this to space combat, has anyone ever thought of creating a
> small micro-jump drive (TL16+) that enables a _small_ mass (<50 tons say)
> to micro-jump to another location within about 0.1 light-second distance
> virtually instantaneously, and much closer to a gravitational mass than is
> normally possible for jump drives?  The image of a huge battle rider
> surrounded by small fighters blinking in and out to avoid return fire,
> etc., is pretty cool I think.  What do you all think of this?

Well, if you are outside the 100 diameter limit (or even *inside* it,
but desperate) you *can* do a "jump 0". But it'll be a week later when
you reappear.

One of the fun things about H. Beam Piper's hyperdrive was that the
jumps were instantaneous in realspace, but took time in hyperspace
proportional to the distance travelled. So if you jumped from A to B,
waited 10 minutes, and jumped back, you'd reappear at A 10 minutes
after you left. But it might be several *months* of shipboard time if A
and B were far enough apart.

This would royally mess up too much of Traveller though.

Your idea is interesting, but the time to cross that .1 light second
had better be *more* than 1/1700 second. If not, it'd be useable as a
stardrive. After all, a parsec is *only* about 100 million .1 light
second jumps. So 100 million times your "instantaneous" had better be
more than a week or we have a new stardrive.

It'd also make for missiles that can't be stopped. Blink--blink---boom!

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

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 02:58:49 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

In mail you write:

> Are there any provisions for "Silent Running", "Stealth", "EM Masking" etc.

Some, but they are more optimistic than realistic.

> Granted at a certain point rules have to be simplified, but. Is it logical
> to say that if you could visually see it then your sensor know it is there?

The problem is that in space things are moving in *all* directions
relative to you, so the only "blind spot" that is acceptable from an
ordinary *safety* point of view is a *very* narrow cone centered on the
exhaust of your reaction drive, and you'd do your best to eliminate
*that* as that will be the *leading* edge of the ship while
decelerating. 

With thruster plates, you should have 360 degree sensor coverage.

This is another one of those cases where experience on earth does *not*
translate into space at all well. Just keep in mind that even if you
are only interested in the area more or less "ahead" of the ship (ie in
the direction it is moving), that can be *any* direction relative to
the ship's nose, solely depending on what sort of course changes the
ship is making. So again we wind up *requiring* sensors that cover the
entire sphere. Blind spots just aren't acceptable in the design.

> My goal is to write a viable set of rules from performing an extremely
> difficult operation. I by no means imagine that what I propose should be
> easy. This kind of stunt should only be tried by the desperate, or insane
> (where are those Marine Special Ops boys?) However, I think that there is an
> open door that could be capitalized by an astute character. If nothing else,
> the element of surprise goes to the crazy man in the grav fighter.

Sadly, it's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*. Or the next thing to
it. It'd be like trying to approach a group of *alert* soldiers who are
standing in a circle facing outwards on a large stretch of bare, level
ground. You *will* be seen by one or more of them.

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

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 03:18:04 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really)

In mail you write:

> At 07:15 AM 4/3/97 +0100, Anders Backman wrote:
>>One reason for fighters in space is that they can get much closer to the
>>enemy without being detected and also they can carry sensors and scout
>>ahead of the expensive spinal ships.
>
> Okaaaay, but then why isn't this true in submarine warfare?  688s and
> boomers are expensive, so why not lead with small stealthed mini-subs
> towing passive arrays, for example?  These could put out a wide sensor net
> and/or deliver decoys, mines, or torpedos from many different locations.
> This would seem to greatly enhance the sensing capabilities of the big sub,
> increase its effective offensive capabilities, and make detection of the
> big sub almost impossible.

It's *harder* to stealth a small sub. And it takes a lot of power to
haul a decent towed array, plus, communications underwater are *lousy*.

> Again, the logic seems to hold for both subs and space -- and yet no one
> has in fact done this for subs.  So is it really reasonable to say this
> would be done for space?  

The sensor and communications picture are *totally* different. The only
reason small ships are stealthier is *because* they are small. That
means less signal, all other things being equal. 

And in space, you can have "tight beam" comm links. Underwater that's
just *not* possible at anything *approaching* useful scouting ranges. 

Underwater visibility (via anything but sonar or mass detector) is
virtually nil. And even via those, it will be limited. Communictions is
just about impossible at anything but short range (until you get
"magic" comm units like meson communicators).

In space, visibility is unlimited. It's a *rare* situation when there's
something to hide behind. And communications are *easy*, laser, maser,
whatever, you can have comm links that are hard to tap. (yes, somone
more or less on the line joining the two ships, but farther away will
be able to pick up "spill". But with a decently narrow beam, that's not
anything to worry much about.

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

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1134
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Friday, April 4 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1135



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: Submarine Fighters
Re: Space combat at the strategic or grand tactical level
Fighters
Fighters vs Capital Ships
Re: Rotating ships
Fighter Design
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: APRIL THUDDD Announcement
Re: AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)
Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters
Re:  Boarding, Fighters and Such
Re: Fighters (long)
Re: Fighters
Re: Submarine Fighters
Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters (way too long)

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 02:24:32 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

In mail you write:

> I would attest that today an F-117 at night could get with in 20 feet of a
> C-130, even if the C-130 knew it was out there and trying to get close.
> When you move to the world of Starships, zero-g, armored hulls etc. That
> "F-117" could not only get with in 20 feet of the "Cargo Plane", it could
> potentially lock on.

Sorry, but there's a major problem here. Ships *will* have IR sensors,
simply necause that's the best *passive* means of spotting things. and
actually *better* than active radar at spotting objects a long ways
off. 

On IR, your F-117 is the equivalent of a road flare. The backgound
(empty space) is at 3K. The life support areas of the ship are at 300K
(read, 100 *million* times as bright). The engineering spaces and
especially the engines or drive may have substantial areas at 3000k or
higher (read one *trillion* times as bright as the background). 

That'd be like trying to sneak up on the cargo plane while aiming
landing lights at the pilot!

And before you try to say that you'll "stealth" the ship with regards
to IR, better consider that this is *very* hard to do. It'll take
*huge* amounts of power to cool just the side facing the other ship
down to a "safe" temperature, and it'll require dumping so much extra
heat from the other side that you'll stand out like a beacon to anyone
looking from that side. The more narrowly you restrict your emissions,
the more power it takes, and the more visible you are from the angle
you still emit. 

So you'd better pray that there's no one around to ask "what the hell
is that bright IR signal?" and thus tip off your target. And also, I'm
pretty sure that the power requirements make IR stealth impractical.

Consider how much power it takes to lower the temp of the inside of
your fridge by 20 degrees C or so. Doing so by 297 degrees will take
around 50,000 times the power. And that's not taking into account the
fact that you have things inside that are *producing* heat. 

At a guess, reducing the engineering heat emissions to 3k would take
around 500 *million* times the power your fridge uses (and this is on a
volume for volume basis).

Remember, the relationship between energy and temperature is roughly:
  E=T^4
That's why all these power and brightness factors climb so high, so fast.

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

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:59:53 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

In mail you write:

> The *only* way to make the figher more maneuverable involves arguments
> about speed of rotation to bring the thruster to bear along a different
> axis.  At the 20-minute-turn timescale of Traveller ship combat, this
> makes absolutely no difference at all.  It might have a considerable
> effect on close-in Star Wars-style dogfights, but that's not how canonical
> Trav combat works; most fighting goes on over ranges on the order of a
> light-second, or 300,000 km.  Being able to jink your nose around quickly
> is of little use at ranges like that.

One thing that fighters can do easily that ships have a hard time doing
is run aty accelerations *higher* than the G-comp can handle. Since
acceleration in a space fighter is *transverse*, not "vertical", the
pilot can withstand high accelerations for a *long* time if he's been
trained and kept in decent condition. For example, taking 2g flat on
your back should be possible *indefinitely*. 3g would be possible for a
number of turns. 

This means that while ships are restricted to (say) 3g so as to allow
for damage control and the like, the fighters can run at 5-6g. That's a
big advantage. 

Of course, missiles can do even better....

Again, remember that *space* fighters take g forces in a different
direction than aircraft do. So the g-tolerance is a *lot* higher.

This also puts fighters back into the early role of aircraft on
seagoing vessels. Scouting. 

Your sensors can detect a bogie a long ways off. And get some info
about it. But stealthing and passive countermeasures can limit the
certainty of the info. 

So you send a couple of fighters out to take a look. They have the
extra gs to go out, take a "close" look and return, unlike your larger
ships (they also use a lot less fuel in doing so). 

If it's harmless, fine. If the bogie is a hostile trying to look
harmless, he has to hope that his camouflage holds up at close range.
If he starts shooting, the game's up. He won't get closer to the big
ships, and they may just be able to damage him badly even at such long
ranges. Plus, the fighters can take a few shots, and louse up his
targetting. Heck, since he has to lie doggo until he's *sure* he's been
indentified, that means that the fighters get their first shot "free",
as that shot is likely the first indication he's going to get. :-)

Point defence isn't a lot of help when someone has closed to *visual*
range before firing. 

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

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 04:21:12 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Space combat at the strategic or grand tactical level

In mail you write:

> Fifth Frontier War attempts to simulate this fog of war issue by
> requiring the fleets to plot their movements several turns in
> advance.  This probably matches the orders given to fleet commanders
> in real life, but, still, both players can see the map and actually
> know whether Jewell has fallen or not.  Other than having three maps,
> a referee, and two players with only their own forces and known enemy
> forces on the map, how have you handled this issue?  Even that is
> flawed, because a commander on Rhylanor won't know what's happened on
> Efate for a long time, even though the commander on Efate knows
> immediately.  Getting fifteen people together to play 5FW is a big
> scheduling problem; maybe there is computer network solution?

Networking won't be a lot better, but you could try combining email
with the "ref and 15 players" bit. It'd be rather like the way I'm told
the local miniatures club used to handle campaigns. They'd use
"boardgame" rules for moving (often handling moves via phone or the
like) until they had units come close enough to fight. Then the
designated commanders of those units would be informed, while the other
folks set up the sandtable for the battle.

I and some friends discussed this a long time back. We figured that you
have the players give orders via email and check in on a fixed schedule
(daily, every other day, twice a week, weekly). The ref plots the moves
and tells them what happened. When they encounter another player's
"unit", then the ref arranges for a face-to-face (or say an IRC
channel) for a battle. The results then propogate to other "units"
(fleets) at the speed of whatever couriers have been sent.

Given either all local players, or all players being able to connect to
the internet realtime, you could even write software to let people have
a *real* "fog of battle" as they see only what the computer says they
can see. :-)

Picture sitting at your computer, and logging onto the "battle server".
You come out of jump and wait for the sensor readings to tell you
what's going on. Sensor lag will be real. Passive sensors show the way
things were seconds, minutes, even *hours* ago for some things. There's
a slowly expanding ring on the display showing how far the signal from
your emergence has gotten. at intervals behind it, other rings indicate
how old sensor returns from inside them are.

You watch as bthings sappear on the screen. Some are identified almost
immediately. Others aren't. And sometimes a signal changes from
"harmless" to "enemy" as you detect ships trying to lie quiet. And you
give orders for fighters to check out the nearer "unkown" blips. And
head in on your mission, hoping that you don't see a major enemy force
blossom on the screens.

It'd be fun, but we'd need to write a lot of software....

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

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 15:23:00 +0100 (BST)
From: Mark James Wilkin <aa4mwi@zen.sunderland.ac.uk>
Subject: Fighters

I'm just wondering if these arguments for and against fighter only hold 
up at tech level 12 +. Would fighters have made more or even less sense 
at tech level 9-11. In fact with just Heplar at tech level 10 would space 
combat be differen't and much more like submarine combat, i.e. no 
thruster plates, limited manuverablity.

*** "*Thwap* My life needs a rewind/erase button"            ***
***                                       Calvin and Hobbes  ***
*** Mark James Wilkin                                            ***
*** Degrees North on the Web                                 ***
*** http://zen.sunderland.ac.uk/~aa4mwi/north.html           ***

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:54:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Ethan Henry <ehenry@mag1.magmacom.com>
Subject: Fighters vs Capital Ships

(It's Friday so I can spare a little time to throw some fuel on the fire...)

I think it's difficult, if not impossible, to analyze the relative
merits of fighters vs capital ships without having a context to place
the conflict in. (My wife is a religous studies grad student, so I've
learned lots of neat concepts like 'context' from stuff she studies.)

Let's get specific.

Why, in T4, is the fighter said to give the new Third Imperium an
advantage over other interstellar empires?

First of all, why are the Syleans the only ones with fighters? Fusion
plants have a very large minimum size and the invention of fusion+ allows
small fusion plants for the first time, ever. (We all knew that though).

OK, so, why would fighters be an advantage? I'll present one mostly-
handwaving argument.

Historically, in almost all fields of battle, the upper hand has gone to
the side that has redefined how the battle is fought. The victor is almost
always the one who fights the battle on their own terms. Gunpowder in
Europe. The German blitzkreig in WW2. Submarines versus surface convoys.
The advantage doesn't last forever - this is an important point. But there
is an advantage for a while and often it's long enough to have won a lot
of battles if not the entire war (OK, so not the blitzkreig in that case).

How would the introduction of space fighters in the sub-100Td range have
changed the field of battle in Year 0?

Well, what would have been there before? Big capital ships. With BIG guns.
There probably would have been a period of escalation in the size of ships
and in the size of spinal mounts, the only things that could damage these
big ships. As somebody else mentioned, no one wins a war in space - wars are
won on the ground. So, you'd have big ships carrying troops to take over
systems. You'd have big ships with big spinal mounts attacking them. You'd
have big ships with big spinal mounts and armor defending the troop transports.
Those empires that can build bigger ships and more of them will be able
to win space battles. It is, however, really expensive to build those
giant things. There isn't a choice though - the smallest power plant you
can build is, what, 250Td? You might as well exploit economies of scale
and build the biggest damn ship with the biggest damn gun you can think of.
Side bonus for meson spinal mounts - you can do rather accurate orbital 
bombardment with it. In Year 0 there aren't very many deep meson sites
to give you trouble. Atmospheric combat is handled by fighters specifically
designed for it (and powered by MHD turbines probably). Ground combat
is again, handled by ground combat vehicles - again, there isn't a power plant
effective enough to power small grav vehicles yet. You'd see vehicles with
a disturbing resemblance to modern combat vehicles. (Note: This is what
T4 canon tells us. We have to partially disregard the descriptions in MT
books like COACC because there isn't a viable power source for grav vehicles,
even though the gravitic technology exists, until TL12.)

Enter the Sylean Empire and Fusion+. Suddenly you can build small, fast,
high-endurance space fighters.

So, what changes?

Imagine, you're a Vilani officer aboard the ZS Eneri VIII battleship.
It's a 10,000Td egg-shape, with Jump-2, maybe 3Gs of acceleration (all that
you can compensate) and a whopping big meson gun, the biggest you can hold.
(The Vilani like spheres for ship hulls, but a sphere is the worst thing
in the world to put a spinal mount in. Eggs are a nice comprimise for those
old-fashioned Vilani). What other weapons are there? Some missles maybe.
Maybe a few point defence weapons, anti-missle lasers, but not much other
than the spinal mount. There's no use for anything else - it isn't able
to damage the enemy. Military doctrines is to close into spinal mount
range on the enemy as fast as possible then hit them before they hit you.
(Hopefully you have a longer range and more armor). That's it.

One day, you engage the enemy (a strange looking vessel without a spinal
mount - easy target!) and before you manage to close in close enough
to loose your meson gun, the enemy ship disgorges a couple hundred ships
that are about 50td each. Huh? What do you shoot them with? You've got a
few missles, but not enough. You have a few point defence lasers, but not
that many. What the hell is powering those things? You've got the meson
gun, but it can't come to bear fast enough on those things (which are probably
pulling 6 or more Gs, with pilots in acceleration tanks). Sure you're
heavily armoured, but they can get real close and punch through the soft 
parts - probably even firing right into the main meson firing tube!!
This is not looking good. You'd run, but they can chase you. Hopefully you're
not too close to a gravity well to jump...

Now, this sort of situation wouldn't last long - maybe a century until all
the old ships get destroyed and ship yards have had time to turn out
ships that are bristling with a mixture of small, medium and large weapons.
In that century though, the Sylean Federation becomes the Third Imperium.

That's why fighters will beat big ships IN YEAR 0. General comparisons
of capital ships vs fighters are too vague to be meaningful.

Comments?

Ethan
- -- 
ehenry@magma.ca                                  http://www.magma.ca/~ehenry

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 07:52:49 -0700
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Rotating ships

Richard Hough wrote:
> 
> >Yes but we're dealing with a 20 minute combat round. If I'm the
> >pilot of the Free Trader, I fire with the laser on the enemy side,
> >flip the ship and fire with the other laser. I don't need to be
> >_constantly_ rotating.
> 
> After you hit an enemy ship do you set a timer so when the next "turn"
> comes around 20 minutes you hurry to flip the ship over to target the enemy
> with the other laser? "Turns" are abstractions for game purposes; in
> reality all the targeting, maneuvering, recharging, sensor activity, and
> flipping is going on constantly. A ship that flips over constantly is
> spinning.
> 
No, a ship that flips over constantly in the same direction is 
spinning. I'm talking about a ship that flips over in a direction
that's convenient to the pilot to accomplish what he wants. If he
wants to bring that extra turret to bear, he flips over in direction
A. If he wants to make sure that the hangar bay faces incoming
ships, he flips in direction B.

> >It would be very bad design to have only one sensor array per sensor
> >device and have that device located in a place where most of the sky
> >can't be seen from it.
> 
> Why go to the expense of installing redundant sensor arrays when you can
> just spin the ship so one array covers the entire sky?
> 

Because of what I said below.

> >If you make it necessary to rotate the ship to make sensors able to
> >see all of the sky, then the complexity of the rotation varies as the
> >number of sensors you have.
> 
> I don't follow. If I install a second sensor the "complexity of rotation
> varies"? How? If I install one sensor on the side of the ship and spin the
> ship, the sensor can sweep the entire sky. If I install another sensor both
> sweep the entire sky. Do you think sensors say "oops, I can't scan there
> because some other sensor is looking there too"?

No but you don't want your sensors bunched together like that. One
good shot could take them all out. You want your sensors spread out
over the ship's hull. You also want more than one sensor array per
type of sensor you have for redundancy purposes.

There are three situations here.
a) you have one sensor array per sensor type and they're all bunched
   together
b) you have one sensor array per sensor type and they're spread out
   over the ship
c) you have several arrays per type and they're spread out over the
   ship

Clearly C is the best choice. With A, you're _required_ to roll your
ship in order to get maximum sensor coverage. With B it's the same,
but the complexity of the rotation _can_ be great, depending upon the
distribution of the arrays. With C you don't need to rotate.


> 
> --
> Richard Hough
> rdhough@orca.bc.ca

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 97 10:17:53 -0500
From: Lewis Roberts <lewis@chara.gsu.edu>
Subject: Fighter Design

Everyone seems to be arguing over how effective space fighters are.
Some people say they are useless for attacking Capital ships, some say
they should be kings of teh spaceways.  The major problem is that for
T4, we have no fighters to argue about.  The three in Starships are
broken.  The other Traveller incarnations aren't much better off.  TNE
had the Rampart and the Wildbat. CT and MT had a few.

I say we make the next THUDD about designing fighters.  They are pretty
intersting to build.  We would have to agree on a mission
specification.  Heavy fighter, light fighter, long range patrol craft
(week duration), short range patrol craft, sensor/picket fighter,
ground attack, but once you have one built, it is easy enough to
modifiy it to another mission. 

Once we have these made up, we can start arguing with some facts to back it up.

What do you say? 

Lewis Roberts
PS I think Fighters are useless for attacking capital ships, but pretty
good at attacking civilian ships, undefended and lightly defended
civilian installations, such as mining colonies, asteroid cities, etc.  
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Q:Why does a cow wear a bell?
A:Because its horns don't work.

lewis@chara.gsu.edu
http://www.chara.gsu.edu/~lewis/roberts.html
- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 08:16:12 -0700
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

Leonard Erickson wrote:
> 
> In mail you write:
> 
> > Yes but we're dealing with a 20 minute combat round. If I'm the
> > pilot of the Free Trader, I fire with the laser on the enemy side,
> > flip the ship and fire with the other laser. I don't need to be
> > _constantly_ rotating.
> 
> Sure you do. It takes energy to *start* rotating and to *stop*
> rotating. It takes none to *continue* rotating. It's not like there's
> friction with something to slow you down.
> 
> So you just put some spin on the ship and let it *keep* spinning.
> Continually starting and stopping the spin would be a nightmare.
> 

I concede the point. I hadn't thought of that. However, it still
means you rotate during combat. When in "peacetime" you don't need
to, unless you have poorly designed sensors (which I posted about
in a different message).

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 08:15:46 -0600
From: Paul Walker <tiger@goldinc.com>
Subject: Re: APRIL THUDDD Announcement

At 02:43 PM 4/3/97 -0800, Craig Berry wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Chris Cox wrote:
>
>> Paul Walker <tiger@goldinc.com> wrote regarging requirements fot the patrol
>> cruiser:
>> 
>> > # Must be able to work in conjunction with larger fleet actions.
>> > 
>> > # Required Minimums:
>> >       Jump:  2                     Maneuver:  2
>> 
>> I would think that think that in order to work with larger fleets the patrol
>> cruiser would need to be capable of Jump 3 at TL-12.
>
>Only the newest ships will have J3 during the early M0 period.  Even
>within this category, not all warships will; there's a lot to be said for
>keeping another 12% of the ship free for powerplants and weapons, so any
>ship that can succeed operationally at J2 will be built that way.
>
>A patrol cruiser should be able to "work with" larger fleets, but I see
>this more as a question of having good commo and sensors, and reasonable
>jump and maneuver ratings.  It's not going to be in the line with the
>latest, longest-range TL 12 warships during serious fighting.  At least,
>not for long... :) 

That's a good point Craig.  My thinking was that the primary use of the
Patrol Cruiser was independent anti-pirate missions which would seldom (if
ever) call for more than J-2.  As to working with Fleets, remember that
tenders and other slow craft will be Jumping with a fleet at times, and they
will rarely waste the space on J-3.

More than anything else, the Jump AND Maneuver issues are both issues of
design rather than standard.

>> BTW Tech level or Milieu wasn't
>> mention, is it the same old Milieu 0, Tech Level 12?
>
>I'm presuming that's the implicit case for all TML/ISBA activities unless
>specifically mentioned otherwise.

Yes, that is correct.  Unless specifically mentioned, the TL for standatd
THUDDD competitions is TL-12 current Imperial Tech.  As the Imperium grows,
and consequently the ISBA, the tech level will likely change, but unless it
is said to be changed, the TL is 12.

    Paul {tiger}
     tiger@goldinc.com
     http://www.goldinc.com/~tiger

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 11:02:04 -0500
From: James Garriss <jpg@langley.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)

At 05:07 PM 4/3/97 -0700, you wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, James Garriss wrote:

>I don't know how useful it would be, but I know I wouldn't want to be
>anywhere near that sitting duck errr AWACS ship when it lights up it's
>active sensors....then _everything_ will see it, unless you're also
>positing that (like our AWACS aircraft) they also have significant jamming
>capability.

Ya missed the point.  It will see everything.  And it will direct a full
complement of offensive and defensive craft to deal with threats.  If it
doesn't have such a complement, ya wouldn't send it along. 

As far as defense goes, be careful about passing yourself off as an expert
on stuff you know not much about.  The AWACS has NO jamming capability of
any sort.  Or any other defensive mechanims for that matter (unless you
count four engines).  It's defense is to be to see EVERYTHING and direct
other craft to do it's dirty work.  Oh, a quick FYI:  the USAF has never
lost an AWACS in combat.

Now space combat is slightly different.  I'm not a ship designing expert,
so someone on the list correct any mistakes.  I would think active sensors
have a greater range than the weapons.  So assumption #1 is that not too
many weapons can hit it.  Secondly, I'd build other ships that have great
defensive stuff to protect the ship.  Or possibly add them to the
AWACS-spacecraft.  Third, you'd keep back a reasonable arsenal of ships to
attack anything that got too close to it.  

I think it's a great idea.  If you're attempting to achieve space
superiority in a system with a large armada, one of these ships would be
invaluable for C2 functions.  

>Stealthy ships with huge passive arrays, now those are a horse of a
>different color...I think we discussed THOSE to death a few months ago;-)

Question: in order to pick up stuff, someone has to been sending out
signals for it to pick up.  Who's doing the sending?

>However, this DOES bring back smaller craft as fighters...if your AWAC's
>are busy jamming all of their sensors, and they yours, smaller ships might
>get in under the sensor 'snow' and get a hit on those cap ships.

Not sure if the point here is valid.  AWACS don't jam.  USAF has other
craft to do that.  And without getting specific, suffice it to say there
are lots of ways to avoid being jammed.


 James Garriss                          System Engineer, MITRE               
 jpg@langley.mitre.org          http://www.cs.odu.edu/~garriss      

Unix csh/sh command:
% If I had a ( for every $ the Congress spent, what would I have?
Too many ('s.

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 11:12:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters

   Hi.

> From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>

> This is not economical though, which is the whole point of fighters.  The
> American navy could (theoritically) build a Battleship (HS) which could
> travel as fast as a speed boat - but why would they?  Its redundent - no
> military advantage - and above all else, its expensive, VERY expensive.

   You're right, of course.  Speedboats are practically standing still
   as far as modern naval warfare is concerned, so having that kind of
   speed would not give the warship any tactical advantage. If the
   American navy could build a warship that was as fast as a fighter
   though, it would have /great/ military advantage. 

   If you want Traveller fighters to be an analogue to modern fighters,
   you'll need to change the rules to give them much greater speed than
   the warships they fight with.  Traveller's current rules encourage
   designers to make all of their fighting ships with 6G acceleration;
   this is very cost effective and advantageous with the design and
   combat rules published so far.  You'll need to modify these rules to
   make fast warships uneconomical, and keep fast fighters cheap.

   -Rob

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 09:18:00 -0700
From: Eric Holmes <holmes_eric_t@lanl.gov>
Subject: Re:  Boarding, Fighters and Such

First,  let's get off the paradign established by
G. Lucas and Star Wars as well as the vein of WWII
thought.  

Remember:

Starships big or small, move through the _three_ axis
of the cartesian plane.  I think a lot of us forgot
that.  When we game, we can only represent the _two_
we see/have on the table.  Why not try playing
Mayday, or BL, using a three dimensional system.
Try it!  Mayday became very complicated. Vectoring
became a mathmatical nightmare.  Agility became
a starship's best defense as it was used to indicate
how many movements through the three planes a 
ship could make.  An agility 6 ship usually did
not use its full agility until it was really
needed.

Starwars, IME, showed what happens when fighters
attack the surface of a planetoid, so what if it
was "man made."  I agree with the vein that fighters
are available for planet assault, High Guard,
scouting, fighter vs fighter, etc,  but definitely
not fighter vs Huge capital ships.  Lasers or
missiles from fighters don't carry enough
destructive power to kill a capital ship, maybe prepping
its surface for a boarding action at a specific
assault point.

A point was made about disabling the drives and
silencing the weapons before boarding.  A truism
if I ever saw one.  Who sends in boarders while
the fight is continuing?  

Now to my answer for boarding actions.  Psionic
teleportation.  OOO - AAA, I love Zhodani boarding
actions.  Why the hell the Zhos lost the 5FW I'll
never know!!!

Eric

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 11:34:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Fighters (long)

   Hi.

> From: Andrew Vallance <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>

> The fighter/ship analogy is not a good one, a far better one is FAC/ship.
> space fighters don't have the massive speed advantage. Throw 100+ Osa II
> against a Iowa plus escorts and the Iowa wins. Space fighters won't be able
> to do the hit and run that modern aircraft rely on against ships.

   Uh, only if the battle group sees the Osas before they close to
   firing range and do something to stop them.  100 of those damn big
   missiles the Osas carry would overwelm the Iowa's air defenses and
   blow it out of the water, even if they had mere conventional warheads
   in them.  The Iowa would need a bunch of Aegis destroyers and
   cruisers with it to stop such an attack.

> Space fighters are not airpower, they just don't have the same advantages.
> They are torpedo boats or FAC's. During the last years of the 19th and early
> years of the 20th centuries the Germans and French both invested heavily in
> this theory, it didn't work. The defence was too simple, bigger craft
> designed to take them out (the destroyer).

   This is a good point.  In order to make the fighter analogy work,
   Michael is going to need to change some of the old assumptions about
   the Trav universe.

   -Rob

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:32:42 -0700 (MST)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Fighters

 
> Your assuming that theres no surprise, which is a major part of any naval
> (space) battle.  If you can say "midway" you should also know that the
> americans took the japanese by surprise, and both were carrier fleets.

You can be undetected out to some range, for sure.  But within a
light second someplace, you're toast.
 
> Your also assuming that Turret mounted weapons can be used against
> fighters.  This makes no sense.  A ship would have large weapons

Huh?  Why in the world (universe?) couldn't you use turret mounted
weapons?  PD weapons would _be_ turret mounted.

> they are designed for Capital ship-to-ship battles.  So there only defense
> is AA.  This means that a hell-of-a-lot more fighters are not supperessed

Their only defense is the turret mounted PD (point defense).  Right.

> Thirdly, your assuming that the fighters have pee-shooters for weaponry.
> This also makes no sense because they would be useless.  They would be
> carrying a barrage of missile/torpedo based weaponry, which would do much
> more that just 'scrape the hull'.

You're assuming that missiles have the same relationship in
traveller combat that they do in modren warfare, ie: a small missile
can kill a big target.  This hasn't traditionaly been the case in
traveller, but even if we assume that it is right, there is no
reason to bring a pilot along for the ride!  Just shoot waves of
missiles.

- -Merrick

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 00:49:56 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

On Thu, 03 Apr 1997 09:11:39 GMT jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay) wrote:

<<To get that close, you would probably have to overwhelm the target
with *more* fighter tonnage than that of the target.  It would then be
unfair to compare 40 50t fighters to a lone 1,000t escort, either in
cost or combat effectiveness.>>

In CT and MT, the fighters would have an advantage that they could mount 40
off triple turrets between them. The 1000 Te capital ship can only mount 10
turrets.... Not sure about T4, as the designs I've tried were QSDS and had
limited numbers of weapons. Hence, the fighters would have an offensive
edge, especially if you group them as batteries.

    -Dom Mooney- dom@cybergoths.u-net.com
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
"But everything is still the same; passing the time, passing the blame.
We carry on in the same old way, we'll find out we left it too late one day,
 to say what we meant to say." - Marillion
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:13:21 -0800
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters (way too long)

I will not continue to participate in a debate about space fighters.
I will not continue to participate in a debate about space fighters.
I will not continue to participate in a debate about space fighters.
Oh, what the heck - it's such an easy target


Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au> writes

>A) Im using the ship/fighter-spaceship/Spacefighter anaology.  I think
>this is the most appropriate, but it still has its flaws.  I think its the
>best, unless someone has been in a real space battle and can tell us
>otherwise.

In ship/fighter, aircraft operate under fundamentally different physical
laws than ships. This is not true in Traveller. The proper analogy is
ship/speedboat (or, as someone more reasonable than I said, ship/FAC.)

>c) Shields make a major difference in my opnion.  In a universe with
>shields, fighters (10t pee-shooters) are useless unless the shields are
>pathetic or the fighters have substantial fire power.  So the next premise
>is that shields (Star Trek style) dont exist or are not very common.

In traveller, there are no shields but there is armour - and armour scales
so that big ships can always carry much more.

>Some people have argued that they couldnt carry the firepower to effect a
>Battleship.  I disagree.  Stick a fusion bomb or Fission torpedo on these
>babies (the equavilent to a Torpedo) and they could wreck havoc on any
>heavily armoured vessel.

A fighter will *never* get close enough to use bombs, or even "torpedoes".
If it's carrying decent-sized missiles, you might as well save time and 
money and fire the missiles directly.

>Also, the ability to mass hundreds and maybe even thousands of these
>babies would make them an irresistable force.  No matter how big a
>battleship is or how heavily armed or armoured it is no way it would
>have the Point Defense (AA) to handle such an onslaught.

The typical fighter you're talking about is - what - 10 tons?
In the same volume, for less money, a battleship can easily fit 
a 3-ton standard turret plus enough power plant to fire it at ROF 100.
The turret will be able to target fighters just as well as anything else
(at 60,000km a fighter heading towards you doesn't exactly have a high
crossing rate.) At 30,000 km or less it will *always* hit (see below). 
A hit from a 750 Mj X-ray laser (TL-15, admittedly) will always kill a
fighter. If the fighters are closing at (say) 20 BL hexes per turn - 
pretty damn fast - the laser will still have time to kill 5 fighters out
of a swarm in the time it takes them to go from 30,000km to "bomb" range.

>Another poster made the point that even in modern naval warfare planes are
>not very effective against modern Point Defense.  I disagree.  If this
>were so why was the last great Battleship engagement was France, 1940?
Let's not forget Guadacanal (cruiser vs battleship) and Leyte Gulf...
>Also, why do modern Navies still rely on Carriers and land based aircraft
>over battleships?  Because no matter how good or how massed your point
>defense is, it wont hit everytime.  Fighters will get threw. 
But note that US doctrine against Soviet ships had really changed to using
standoff weapons - Harpoons, etc. - carried by fighter aircraft rather than
flying right overhead and dropping bombs. Anyone who's ever played out such
a scenario in (say) Harpoon knows why this is so...And even in the falklands,
a handful of exocets on Entendards were much more effective than all the iron
bombs (though that's a special case.)

>Not really, since most of these weapons will be designed for larger ship
>targeting.  I cant remember the last time a saw a spinal mounted Meson
>canon open fire and hit a fighter.  Can you?
Spinal mounts are of limited use against fighters, but good old-fashioned
laser turrets are fine. Hitting a 10-ton fighter at 30,000km is no 
harder than hitting a 10000-ton capital ship at 300,000km (ignoring 
evasion, which helps the capital ship more - see below.) It has the
same angular size, and if the fighter is heading towards you to drop its
bombs while the capital ship is evading, the fighter has *lower* 
apparent crossing velocity...

>This is an incorrect assumption.  Top speed is whatever a space craft has
>been built to go upto.  Im sure light speed isnt one of them (mayb absurd
>speed:).  Each tech level logically would have an upper limit of the
>absolute fastest speed it can build engines to.
This is just so silly I won't even bother to comment on it.

>> Let's compare 5000x10-ton fighters to 1x50,000-ton battlerider 
>> (so that Jump drives don't get
>> in the way and mess things up.) The battlerider will be just as high-
>> acceleration as the fighters for a given amount of money spent on
>> maneuver drives. Since the battlerider has a much lower surface-to-volume

>This is not economical though, which is the whole point of fighters.  The
>American navy could (theoritically) build a Battleship (HS) which could
>travel as fast as a speed boat - but why would they?  Its redundent - no
>military advantage - and above all else, its expensive, VERY expensive.

Have you ever even designed a Traveller starship? With any set of rules?
The M-drive/P-plant to give a 50,000 ton ship 6-G is precisely 5000 times
the size and cost of the M-drive/P-plant to give a 10-ton fighter
6 G. 


>So your first supposition is unsupportable.  I hope your argument wasnt
>based on it. Lets read on and find out.

>I dont think this is plausiable either.  Your assuming that fighters are
>one-hit weapons and that they have no counter measures.  I also think its
>absurd that you effectively state that a fighters agility is helpful at
>medium to long ranges, but useless at short ranges.  At short ranges is
>where it counts.

You may find it absurd, but you're wrong.

Laser rule 1: Laser's don't miss. A laser beam always goes were you want
it to, for all practical purposes - even with modern optical technology you
can design closed-loop tracking systems that give a laser beam an error
circle 14 cm in diameter at a range of 30000 km. (The trick is that you
don't do fine aiming by moving the whole laser, but just with a precision
mirror inside the laser assembly, and you have your terminal tracking
sensor looking along the same set of mirrors that will launch the laser.)

If the fighter at 30000km is
heading straigh towards you to drop its bombs, every laser shot the capital
ship fires will hit. If the fighter moving sideways, that still doesn't
help - the tracking sensor always keeps the laser centered on the fighter.
Mirrors and computers can always move faster than the fighter. At long ranges
the computer has to "lead" the fighter, but that's easy to compute and do.
At 30,000km, you can't move fast enough to avoid light.

The only way not to get hit by a laser is not to be where you were (or where
the computer thinks you're going to be) when the pulse arrives. You can
do this at medium-long ranges, since the pulse takes a whole second to travel
300,000km - you have two seconds to evade randomly, during which a 6-g fighter
can move itself 120m from its predicted course. At 30,000km, you have 2/10
of a second, which is only long enough to move 1.2 metres - not enough
to not get hit.

Even in the Real World, as laser weapons become practical (take a look at the
USAF planned 747-carried anti-theatre-ballistic-missile system),
I suspect aircraft pilots may be in for a nasty shock. The only things that
will protect aircraft against lasers are atmospheric effects - turbulence,
clouds, etc - that will degrade the beam against low-flying aircraft, and
the fact that TL-8 lasers don't have a whole lot of power or good beam
quality. Neither are issues in Traveller.

Bruce

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1135
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Friday, April 4 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1136



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Color of the sky...
Re: Fighters (long)
Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)
Re: Fighters
Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters
Re[2]: Boarding, Fighters and Such
TL advancement
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: Much Ado About Starship Design
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Emperor's Arsenal & ref screen
Fighters - a response (LONG)
Hulls for the QSDS
Re: Submarine Fighters
Re: matching vectors (new questions)

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:40:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>
Subject: Color of the sky...

Okay, all you chemists and astronomers out there, here's a question for you:

I've got my players going to Bruyere in Deneb sector. The atmosphere is
very thin, tained, with my handy dandy World Builder's Handbook determining
that the taint consists primarily of sulphur compounds. Bruyere orbits a F0
V primary, so it's a pretty bright white main sequence star. The planet is
only 40 percent water, so it's likely to be fairly dry, too. And yes, since
it's the system mainworld, the planet is in the habitable zone.

Question: what color would the sky be in broad daylight? At sunset? I think
I've got night solved. <g>

Sky color is one of the details I always like to include in my descriptions
to give them the feeling that they're _not_ on a Terran Prime world. Of
course, the fact that they'll be wearing compressors and protective suits
should help accomplish that too!

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Best,

Chris

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 12:35:57 -0500
From: James Garriss <jpg@langley.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Fighters (long)

At 11:39 PM 4/4/97 +1200, you wrote:

>I think fighters in traveller would be more analogous to FAC's. Small fast
>maneuverable packing a big wallop. 

Help me out here.  FAC = ???

>However one should be aware of the very
>real disadvantages of such craft: virtualy no defences, very limited EW
>capacity and very poor targeting.

Wait a second, why exactly would a small craft have very poor targeting.  I
would agree that the range would be less, 'cause the sensor suite is
probably smaller, but the targeting should be superb for the range of it's
weapons.

>Carrying a weapon is very different from being able to target with it.
>The biggest weapon in the world is of little use if you can't hit with it.
>In space combat the velocity are going to so great that you're going to
>have very short engagement times. Therefore you are going to need some
>very effective targeting and control; and there will be a minimum size craft
>required to mount it.

What about weapons that carry there own targetting systems, ala the
Phoenix?  If ship could close to a distance where it could detect a target,
it could fire its missles (or torpedos or whatever).  They should be able
to finish the job from there.  Hey modern day weapons have very effective
targeting system, and they're much smaller than a 10 ton space fighter.


 James Garriss                          System Engineer, MITRE               
 jpg@langley.mitre.org          http://www.cs.odu.edu/~garriss      

Unix csh/sh command:
% If I had a ( for every $ the Congress spent, what would I have?
Too many ('s.

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 12:35:54 -0500
From: James Garriss <jpg@langley.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)

At 11:21 AM 4/4/97 GMT, James Lindsay wrote:
>On Sat, 5 Apr 1997 00:27:40 +1000 (EST), you wrote:

>I'm (we're?) not trying to.  I am trying to explain the effectiveness
>of two *equally balanced* sides in a Traveller space combat, one
>composed of fighters and one composed of a single Capital ship.  Only
>under such circumstances can you determine how cost effective fighters
>are when compared to a single larger ship.

I hear what you're saying, but I think a much bigger, much more important
point is being missed.  Are fighters useful?  The group of fighters vs. a
single ship is probably a lousy example, 'cause in a war you'd want to
utilize all the weapons at your disposal.  Each platform has a role (or set
of roles) that it fulfills.  Together, they win a war.

So here's the question:  is there a useful role that fighters can perform
in naval (space) combat?  That role doesn't have to be killing
dreadnoughts.  If there is a role, then build 'em and use 'em.  If not, don't.

>> lost the 100,000t Battleship or the side that lost 100 fighters?  Dont
>> forget, lives are generally more expendable then hardware.

Lives are not more expendable.  Not unless your AI systems are capable of
running the whole show (in which case you wouldn't use people in the first
place).

Of course, this does depend somewhat upon the culture.  Kamakaze (sp?)
pilots in WWII thought it a Good Thing to die for their country.  In the
Gulf War, Americans were appalled (sp?) any time a pilot or soldier was
killed. 

>Wrong!  It takes twenty years to breed a pilot, and only a few days to
>replace his/her fighter.

Not really.  Two or three years is a better figure.  Most pilots who have
been in the service 20+ years are in a desk job somewhere, commanding folks.


 James Garriss                          System Engineer, MITRE               
 jpg@langley.mitre.org          http://www.cs.odu.edu/~garriss      

Unix csh/sh command:
% If I had a ( for every $ the Congress spent, what would I have?
Too many ('s.

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 12:35:52 -0500
From: James Garriss <jpg@langley.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Fighters

At 03:48 PM 4/3/97 -0500, Bob wrote:

>The
>aircraft simply offers the Navy the ability to extend that zone. But
>fighters/bombers do not, nor could they, attack an enemy fleet. Not
>today. 

Bzzzt.  Ever heard of Billy Mitchell?  No?  Go find a library and read up
on him.  The USN can effectively use aircraft to destroy enemy fleets.
Bombs, missiles, and torpedos can sink battleships, carriers, cruisers, and
anything else (except perhaps subs, but that's a different question).

Now ideally fighters would not be the ONLY thing the USN used to destroy
the enemy fleet (everything is situationaly dependent).  They would like to
use their battlships, cruisers, destroyers, subs, etc as well.  Everything
should be one big coordinated effort.

The real issue is can Traveller's fighters carry weapons that can damage a
large ship.  Logically, yes.  But the real question is what have the ship
designers allowed?  If they haven't built such capabilities, then they can't.

>Subs, bombers and ships all launch these missiles from
>beyond sensor range of the enemy fleet and the missiles are your
>invincible force. 

True, but fighters can do that too.

>Look at what we used
>to teach Iraq a lesson; no aircraft, just Cruisers, Destroyers and Subs
>launching cruise missiles from beyond his range. Aircraft are too
>fragile to send to downtown Baghdad! 

I'm laughing.  Even CNN knew more than you do.

>Your argument also implies that small fighters carry weapons that will
>cripple a large ship; cruise missile, torpedo, 1000 pound bomb,
>whatever. The Traveller universe offers NO such weapon. 

Well, here you have hit upon the main point and with good accuracy.  If
it's not in the game, then it's not in the game.  This would be an example
of Real Life not scaling up to Traveller Life.

I suppose we could argue about whether or not it *should* be that way, but
I'd rather not.  Nobody's asked me to design the next version of the game.
:-)


 James Garriss                          System Engineer, MITRE               
 jpg@langley.mitre.org          http://www.cs.odu.edu/~garriss      

Unix csh/sh command:
% If I had a ( for every $ the Congress spent, what would I have?
Too many ('s.

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 10:55:59 -0700 (MST)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters

 
> This is not economical though, which is the whole point of fighters.  The
> American navy could (theoritically) build a Battleship (HS) which could
> travel as fast as a speed boat - but why would they?  Its redundent - no
> military advantage - and above all else, its expensive, VERY expensive.

Wrong.  Any US aircraft carrier right now is as fast as a speedboat.
Remember with your naval analogies that max speed for a ship is
proportianal to its length :-P
 
> So your first supposition is unsupportable.  I hope your argument wasnt
> based on it. Lets read on and find out.
 
Besides, his point is right.  USe the ship design rules to build
fighters for traveller and look at what they do vs. a big, heavily
armored ship.  BTW, it's interesting to try and build a fighter with
high-g drives using any of the design systems that actually count
mass.  You end up having to iterate the process, and it's really
hard to get a fighter with a high g-rating.

> > ratio, it will have *much* thicker armour for a given amount of mass/volume
> > devoted to armour. The fighters *don't* carry the same weapons as the 
> > battleriders, not really - to damage a heavily armoured target you need
> > a whopping great meson gun or PA spinal mount, which you can't fit in a 
> > ten-ton fighter. The fighter's weapons will bounce off the battlerider.
> 
> This logic also doesnt follow in the real world.  Remember, none of us
> have been on a Space battleship (Aurora class:) so we can only compare
> our theories to real world examples (as close as possible any way).  How
> were the Japanese able to destroy the Prince Of Wales and its
> sister ship in ww2 just with naval based air power?  

*blink*  One, armor is a smaller % for a given thickness on a
bigger ship, period (even now, it's simple geometry).

The modern naval analogy is broken.  There are no iron bombs in
traveller.  If a fighter can fire a nmasty missile, so can the BB,
all the fighter does is add a crew member to each small group of
missiles.
 
Your WW2 example makes no sense at all.

> If a fighter has the right weaponry (For space combat i would say missiles
> and space bombs with proxiamety charges) it just doesnt matter how thick
> the armour is.  People seem to think fighters are one shot weapons, there

Huh?  If the armor is thicker than the crater, it matters.

> not.  They hit in waves, first waves drops there payload, returns to
> carrier, refuels and rearms.  While this is going on the second and third
> waves have hit.  A Battleship can only take so much damage from Nuclear
> warheads and Fusion/Fission/Anti-Matter bombs.

If the mother ship were to just fire missiles, you needn't wait for
return and rearm---you get twice the shots in.

> Armour is a measure of endurance in these sort of battles, not a guarntee
> of safety.
 
If the weapon can't get through then 100 can't get through uinless
they all hit the same spot.

> > ranges; at short ranges (<30,000km), no amount of agility can stop a good
> > closed-loop laser tracking system from hitting. A single hit from a
> > laser turret will destroy a fighter, so the fighters (to be effective)
> 
> I dont think this is plausiable either.  Your assuming that fighters are
> one-hit weapons and that they have no counter measures.  I also think its
> absurd that you effectively state that a fighters agility is helpful at
> medium to long ranges, but useless at short ranges.  At short ranges is
> where it counts.
 
At short ranges the PD never misses.  The counter measure is
evasion.

> I would love to see an example of what you said in any modern battle.
> Show a battle where a fighters agility works against them at short range.
 
Agility makes no difference at ranges where the travel time of the
weapon is small.  At close range, the fighter evades a fraction of a
meter in the time it takes for the laser to get from its turret to
the fighter.  Unless the fighter evades about a ship radius in this
time period, it will likely get hit (very, very likely).  This is
unarguable.

> Aircraft won because of speed and agility, and being able to deliver
> high-powered explosives without being hit, and being able to do this
> repeatedly. 

space fighters aren't faster, period.

a 6g ship is a 6g ship is a 6g ship.  My BB can just run away and
you'll nevcer catch up (all the while killing a bunch of fighters a
turn).

- -Merrick

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 12:03:46 -0800
From: Danny_M._Moody@mailhost.bridge.com (Danny M. Moody)
Subject: Re[2]: Boarding, Fighters and Such

>Now to my answer for boarding actions.  Psionic
>teleportation.  OOO - AAA, I love Zhodani boarding
>actions.  Why the hell the Zhos lost the 5FW I'll
>never know!!!
>
>Eric

Memory is going in my old age... Didn't I read (somewhere in the vast volumes of
Traveller data) that the 3I navy installed psionic shielding in their combat 
ships (kindof like a psi-helmet, but writ large)?

- -Vanya

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 13:09:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Dedly@aol.com
Subject: TL advancement

The expanded Legal and TL digits as presented in the RICE papers (toast in
honor of Jeff Zeitlin and the other RICE authors) IMO are an excellent idea.
Although it provides too much data for the general UPP, it is an excellent
option for refs who wish to delve further into world creation. 

It is taken for granted that Earth's development is the standard by which
civilizations on other worlds advanced technologically. This is fine although
IMO a not wholly accurate way at looking at TL advancement. IMO, it is
possible, for example, for a civilization to be really advanced medically but
lagging in military hardware. The expanded UPP for TL enables one to
differentiate this.

The point of my post is this: I'd like to see a more detailed version of TL
advancement across the spectrum as it appeared in the CT big black book. I've
had to make my own modifications to it based on the last 20 years of tech and
the speculations about the future it has inspired. Some areas are defined
pretty well (military hardware & jump drives) but there's no central
repository of this overrall info that I can find. I haven't seen the CSC so I
don't know if what I'm looking for is addressed there. The T4 book covers
this in little blurbs but only for society at TL11. 

Maybe it is up to the ref to determine this on his/her own.

\_/
DED

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 11:21:47 -0700 (MST)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

 
> >To bring weapons to bear.  If you have 50% of your turrets on the
> >top of the hull, and 50% on the bottom, and you *don't* slowly
> >rotate, then you never use more than 50% at any given target.  It
> >almost always makes more sense to rotate.  In multi-ship battles,
> >hiding a facing from the enemy is moot since they are probably at a
> >few different facings.
> 
> In space combat you shoot at the enemy all the time. The game turns are
> only abstractions.

Yeah, isn't that what I said above?  You _constantly_ rotate.

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 97 12:55:10 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: Re: Much Ado About Starship Design

In a message dated 1997-04-03 00:11, Anders Backman wrote:

>>I don't like the lable placement, however.  I'd say:
>>
>>6  subregional          10km
>>7  regional             30
>>8  subcont./low orbital 300
>>9  cont./orbital        3,000
>
>Here's a quiz: Why should subregional be 10 km. Shouldn't ALL ranges fit
>this scheme? Because it's already published or what?

Yes. Because it's already published.
:-)

Actually, subregional is the transition between the 30/300/3000 
progression, and the personal combat ranges.

The full table is as follows (Gathered from T4 and CSC):

  0   Contact              3 m
  1   V. Short            15 m
  2   Short               45 m
  3   Medium             150 m 
  4   Long               450 m
  5   V. Long           1500 m
( 6*  E. Long           4500 m  )   
  6?  Subregional         10 km
  7?  Regional            30 km
  8?  Subcontinental     300 km   
  9?  Continental       3000 km
 10?  Orbital          30000 km
 11?  Far Orbit       300000 km

I just noticed there is another range listed in the Vehicle Weapons Table 
on page 59 of the CSC called "E. Long".

If E. Long is "Extra Long" then it would, I assume, fit in at 4500 m.

Note to Marc: If "Extra Long" is indeed a range band, then the table you 
recently posted should start at 7, not 6.

===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 97 12:55:06 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

In a message dated 1997-04-03 12:32, Erwin Fritz wrote:

>Glenn Hoppe wrote:
>> 
>> Erwin Fritz wrote:
>> >
>> > Someone else wrote:
>> > >
>> > > It is my understanding that a ship turns on it's axis to bring 
>guns/sensor
>> > > to bear, or to turn a damaged hull away from your opponent. What would 
be
>> > > the benifit to turning all the time? I can think of the above two 
reasons
>> > > not too.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Again, I can't see any except to evade grappling attempts.
>> 
>> Oh, I can think of a few more...
>> 
>> Again, a ship with two laser turrets on port and starboard sides (ala
>> Far Trader) couldn't use both to hit a ship on one side *unless* the
>> ship is rotating.
>> 
>
>Yes but we're dealing with a 20 minute combat round. If I'm the
>pilot of the Free Trader, I fire with the laser on the enemy side,
>flip the ship and fire with the other laser. I don't need to be
>_constantly_ rotating.

Why waste fuel and time by: firing lasers, thrust to rotate, thrust to 
stop rotating, fire lasers, thrust to rotate, thrust to stop rotate, fire 
lasers...

When you can: thrust to rotate, fire lasers, fire lasers, fire lasers...

>Now, capital ships with guns everywhere need to rotate for the reason
>you give. However, it's only necessary during combat.
>
>> Another very good reason: A laser does more damage the longer it is
>> trained on a particular spot. (My childhood experiments with plastic
>> toys, sunlight, and magnifying glasses proved this) If the ship rotates,
>> you force an attacking laser to distribute its energy over a greater
>> area, thus reducing penetration and hopefully, damage.
>> 
>
>The original question asked about rotating all the time. The above
>paragraph IS a good reason to rotate, but only in combat. What about
>when you're not in combat?

All of my points of course, assume that rotation is only necessary and 
advantageous during combat. *obviously* if you're just moving from point 
A to point B without seeing another ship you don't *need* to rotate.

The original poster was referring to boarding actions. What kind of 
unsolicited boarding action happens outside of the context of combat?

In a nutshell: Ships expecting or entering into combat that are 
constantly rotating have an advantage over ships that do not. Therefore, 
wise captains keep their ships spinning.



===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 11:12:18 -0800
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Emperor's Arsenal & ref screen

Just got them.

Screen: looks reasonable, lists the new UPP which will be explained later
in pocket empires.  It does not, though, have a table listing the meanings
of the various UPP values, beyond that they are (for example) government.
Sigh.

Still and all, the other tables are fairly good.

EA: Very good work, but I have come to expect that from Greg Porter.

The weapons themselves are reasonable, and I liked the side bars on
antimatter, nukes, and other details.  If this is the quality of work we
can expect from the new IG, I am favorably impressed.  The outside covers
still have Giant Robot art by Chris Foss, but the interior art is
Traveller-specific.

Someone should come up with a canonical answer, though, on what tech level
the Vilani and the ROM made it to.  Several points inside EA refer to TL 13
equipment from the Vilani, which I had thought they did not make it to.  I
am, of course, willing to be shown otherwise.

The TL16 weapons were fairly clever as well.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 10:19:23 -0800
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Fighters - a response (LONG)

>A) Im using the ship/fighter-spaceship/Spacefighter anaology...

It is also completely irrelevant because of the tremendous speed
differences between modern vessels, and the destructive power present day
fighters carry.

Until you address that, you had best ignore most modern naval tradition.
We have ultimate weapons in the form of fighter misses and bombs, which
traveller does not.  Introduce those, and fighters come back.

>b) Spacefighters are cool.  So im going to be biased anyways:)

Agreed, they are cool, but I rule that they are not a major factor against
anything larger than a destroyer.  This is why they can slaughter pirates,
but are not going to make a difference in a fleet action, save against
escorts.

>c) Shields make a major difference in my opnion.

So does armor, and in about the same way.

>Unless economics are really different in the Imperium as opposed to earth
>today, it will definetly be more cost effective to build a high speed,
>well armed, highly maneuvrable 10t Fighter as  opposed to a Dreadnaught
>with the same capabilities.

But it will likely not be any more economical to build 5000 10 ton fighters
and a carrier to bring them to the battle location.  Further, the 5000
fighters do not have the spinal mount needed to crush big iron.

For a shore station, you are a bit better off, but then you should compare
the result to a 50000t battle rider carried by a 90kt carrier to you 5000
fighters.

>How effective would a fighter be?  I think quite effective.  Militaraly a
>10t fighter is more expendable then a 100,000t Battleship.  Also 10t
>fighters would be easier to replace.

Perhaps, but one fighter will not take out a battleship.  Are 9000 fighters
more expendable?  Are they easier to replace?  Admittedly, they do build
faster.

>Some people have argued that they couldnt carry the firepower to effect a
>Battleship.  I disagree.  Stick a fusion bomb or Fission torpedo on these
>babies (the equavilent to a Torpedo) and they could wreck havoc on any
>heavily armoured vessel.

So?  If your fission bomb is a light second away, I have certainly seen it,
and if I have enough lasers (and I will - I can put a small laser
sufficient to nail a missile in a very small space, along with fire
directors as needed) I can kill it.

My sensor suite is a lot larger than yours, and I can afford a lot more
computing power here and there to shuffle through it.  Every one of my
people has better information than each of your fighter pilots, and thus is
more likely to get that critical shot.  Remember, unless the fighters are
in a tactical net, which requires communications, I have all of my good
stuff in one spot, whereas yours is spread all over space.

>>It's kinda hard to "zoom in and target important systems" in traveller

>I disagree, your thinking in terms of 25th century offense vs 20th century
>defense.  If a fighter can fly as fast as the "speed of light" (which it
>cant) it is only logical to assume it would have the guidance, tracking
>and maneuverability to cope with that speed, and the enemy (all things
>being equal) would have the defense to match it. 

The Traveller fighter is a slow platform - the same speed as the target.
It has light speed weapons which are vastly inferior to the target, and sub
light weapons that are not.  Given that the target may have several HOURS
to target your fighters and their munitions, I would say that there is not
defense, save not being seen, being able to survive the onslaught, or being
able to overwhelm the defenses. 

>So who won the battle both economically and militaraly?  The guy with the
>air power.  Once again, im making an analogy between ships and space
>vessels.

My apologies, but I must really protest at making this analogy.

Ships and space vessels are similar in many ways, but atmospheric fighters
are just NOT similar to anything in Traveller.

They cannot get close enough, and they cannot do enough damage.

[fighters are more survivable]
>I disagree, show me an historical example.  Name one naval battle where a
>battleship with out aircover went into battle with a carrier and won? 

In Traveller, there is no air cover.  None.  Nada.  Zip.

Air cover depends on being able to harm the enemy when he cannot harm you,
with weapons that do damage.  Because Traveller ships all move at roughly
the same speed, and have access to the same weapons, and those weapons go
up in danger with size, there is no equivalent to the fighter plane.

If you think there should be, change the following:

1.  The lack of a small weapons that can get through armor

2.  The tremendous range of starship sensors

3.  The low speed of traveller ships, relative to their sensors.

Note the time scales of present day combat - I see your fighters just about
when they come into their own range, because we have the same weapons, and
they are all overkill.  In Traveller, fighters come into range _hours_
before either of us can fire.

>
>>Also, i would assume that a fighter could get to its top speed a whole
>>lot faster than a large ship.>>

No, I am afraid that is not the case with Traveller physics.

In traveller, things are rated with an acceleration.  6Gs is 6Gs, so the
carrier and the ship have the exact same speed.  Slew rate might make a
difference, but not much of one.

If you add a non-Newtonian drive, then you might have something, but
Traveller does not use drives like this.

>>That's all a matter of Gs of acceleration, "top speed" in space is fairly
>>close to the speed of light, so there isn't any real top speed...

>This is an incorrect assumption.  Top speed is whatever a space craft has
>been built to go upto.

No.  In space, at the time scales we are discussing, the only real risk is
hitting micrometeors, and a large ship has the advantage of more armor.  If
you wish to argue this point, then you had best state what assumptions you
are making that differ from traveller canon.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 21:29:20 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
Subject: Hulls for the QSDS

Could anyone tell me how the hulls in the QSDS was designed?
I need som hulls with higher armour than the ones in QSDS
or Wildstar's Big Table of Hulls.

Tommy Grav
Institute of Astrophysics
Universiy in Oslo
Norway

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 11:33:57 -0800
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

>Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:59:53 PST
>From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
>One thing that fighters can do easily that ships have a hard time doing
>is run aty accelerations *higher* than the G-comp can handle...
...
>This also puts fighters back into the early role of aircraft on
>seagoing vessels. Scouting. 

Agreed, and a very good use.  I expect they could also be used for lockons
that are handed off to the main ships out of easy range.  It is a lot
easier to keep tracking something than to find it in the first place.

Scott

Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 13:40:34 -0600
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

At 02:58 AM 4/4/97 PST, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:
>
>The problem is that in space things are moving in *all* directions
>relative to you, so the only "blind spot" that is acceptable from an
>ordinary *safety* point of view is a *very* narrow cone centered on the
>exhaust of your reaction drive, and you'd do your best to eliminate
>*that* as that will be the *leading* edge of the ship while
>decelerating. 
>
>With thruster plates, you should have 360 degree sensor coverage.
>
>This is another one of those cases where experience on earth does *not*
>translate into space at all well. Just keep in mind that even if you
>are only interested in the area more or less "ahead" of the ship (ie in
>the direction it is moving), that can be *any* direction relative to
>the ship's nose, solely depending on what sort of course changes the
>ship is making. So again we wind up *requiring* sensors that cover the
>entire sphere. Blind spots just aren't acceptable in the design.
>

Well rotating your ship to bring your batteries to bear has its mostly good
points but from the sensor end it sucks.

Example: a 400 dt ship with a large inflatable PEMS array of >100m
diameter. In this example the dish array do not rotate by it's own device.
The dish is most sensitive/accurate when the incoming signal source is
perpendicular to the arrays axises. The array is pointing dead ahead ie 0
degree's in all axises that matter/count. By rotating the ship the dish
array will be no longer in the most efficient/sensitive/accurate position.
Lets say that the 90 degree axises of the array are 30 degrees out of
alignment with a possible signal source. Due the misalignment the signal
will be perceived by the array as 100% less strong. At 45 degree lets say
that is where your array has side lobes, the incoming signal will be
perceived as 50% less strong. At 75 degrees of misalignment the incoming
signal will be perceived as 300% less strong and at greater 90 degrees
misalignment no signal can be perceived at all. 

So by rotating your ship you will be unable to locate incoming signal
sources until your array is rotated into a position where the misalignment
will allow a signal strength to allow the array to process it into a
possible target. But that a good enough alignment of array and target
source will not occur very often. Lets say once out every ten rotations,
this not very good for tracking a target signal source for use in firing at
the target source.

Lets change the example a little ie the dish array now can rotate and has
stabilization to cover all relevant axises ie generally two axises.

Well having a dish array capable of its own independent rotation on the
surface sounds like good idea, well in a few cases it would be. Those cases
being when the ships rotation will allow for the dish array to stabilize to
the target signal source. But those cases would depend upon how far the
stabilization to occur say 45 degrees above and below main signal axis.
Even with this degree of stabilization most of the ships rotation 70% the
array will not be able to track/detect a target signal.

Both examples were only trying to detect/track a single target source
signal. More than one target signal really mucks up the figures against
ship rotation to unmask batteries.

A better use would be for the main batteries to be mounted such a way that
they can all bear upon targets directly in the front firing arc.


- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1136
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Friday, April 4 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1137



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)
Re: Submarine Fighters
Re: Grav Cities in Gas Giants
Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters
Those dirty brain-raping Zhos. (Previously AWACS Starships and Zhodani
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: Submarine Fighters
Re: AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)
Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
Re: Fighters - a response (LONG
Re: Submarine fighters
Re: Fighters
Re: Submarine fighters
Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
Re: Grav Cities in Gas Giants
Re: Putting FIGHT back into Figher (was Submarine Fighters)
Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)
Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)
Re: First Survey and Massilia Sector (longish)
Re: Fighter Design

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 15:00:12 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)

In a message dated 4/4/97 1:44:07 AM, you wrote:

<<This begs an interesting question.  Is there a Traveller equivalent to an
AWACS?  It would have to be a ship with a massive array of active sensors.
It would also have a suite full of controllers who are controlling the
movements of all the ships in the region.  It would have active, tight-beam
communication with all other ships in the region.  The tactical advantage
of such a ship would be huge.>>

I haven't seen anything in books, but I've made some.

Actaully, you can put some great PASSIVE stuff on them.

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 15:00:39 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

In a message dated 4/4/97 6:21:10 AM, you wrote:

<<The same thing is operating in Traveller space combat.  The fastest fighter
still has 
only Maneuver-6, the same as the fastest battleship.  It generally has better
agility 
(under the High Guard system, anyway), but it can't accelerate any faster.
 So submarine 
fighters are a good analogy for space fighters in this respect -- and that
supports the 
argument that space fighters won't be an effective force in ship-to-ship
actions.
>>

See, this depends on which version of Traveller you are using. In TNE you can
have more then 6G acceleration.

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 15:00:27 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Grav Cities in Gas Giants

In a message dated 4/4/97 8:15:40 AM, Craig Berry wrote:

<<You're at the bottom of a huge gravity well,>>

Are you? How much does the gravity fall off between the "surface" of a gas
giant and the upper atmosphere?

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 15:00:17 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters

In a message dated 4/4/97 6:27:34 AM, Merrick wrote:

<<missiles don't really
need to be carried to the target.>>

Don't they? Missles don't have as much range as a fighter (and a fighter
doesn't usually have as much range as a carrier).

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 15:00:52 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Those dirty brain-raping Zhos. (Previously AWACS Starships and Zhodani

In a message dated 4/4/97 6:13:51 AM, John P Raynor wrote:

<<fully aware of what those
dirty brain-raping Zho-ies are up to, but powerless to stop them>>

Hmmm... I wonder what the feasibility of Psi-Shield clouds would be. You
know, similar to Chaff clouds that Artillery can lay now a days.

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 15:00:30 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

In a message dated 4/4/97 2:37:30 AM, you wrote:

<<A precision sports car throws a grapple on a flat bed truck. The Truck does
donuts. Will the Sports car be able to match speed to keep circling the
Truck, while closing the circle smaller?
>>

No. There is a matter of turning radius. Plus it may not be a good analogy,
it all depends on relative G ratings for ships.

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 15:00:28 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

In a message dated 4/4/97 2:36:31 AM, you wrote:

<<The big Radar dish mounted on top of a plane will not see the plane six
feet
under the body of the plane. I suppose you could install door openers on the
bottom of all those planes, but at a certain point defense is offset by
cost.>>

But if the plane is rotating to bring the radar to bear (as all ships in TNE
supposedly do) then the plane six feet under would be unmasked.

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 15:00:41 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

In a message dated 4/4/97 6:26:53 AM, James Lindsay wrote:

<<While it may be true that fighters don't need
jump drives, large fuel supplies, sick bays, repair/refitting facilities,
hangers, a frozen watch, etc. on board, they do need access to them at
*some* time.  In a way, part of the cost (and tonnage) of a fighter is made
up of a fraction of the carrier/base itself.>>

This is true, however, the point of fighters is that the support facilities
(carrier or base) are not placed in the thick of danger. [At least, that's
the hope.]

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 15:00:09 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)

In a message dated 4/4/97 6:26:06 AM, you wrote:

<<Stealthy ships with huge passive arrays, now those are a horse of a
different color...I think we discussed THOSE to death a few months ago;-)

However, this DOES bring back smaller craft as fighters...if your AWAC's
are busy jamming all of their sensors, and they yours, smaller ships might
get in under the sensor 'snow' and get a hit on those cap ships.>>

Precisely. And the AWACs could easily have escorts as well. Interceptors
would only have to be able to recieve the tight beem communication.

Also, has anybody considered mine-layers? Including sensor-pickets.
Admittedly this would be more for defending a planet/spacebase then
assaulting one, but it definately gives the defenders an advantage. That and
the ground based "spinal" mounts.

It seems to me that assaulting a planet in Traveller would be very difficult.

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 15:00:16 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors

In a message dated 4/4/97 6:24:22 AM, Erwin Fritz wrote:

<<Now, the combat round is 20 minutes. This is enough of a period for
the jiggling to have no effect on direction.

Jiggling is produced by the steering jets, not the maneuver drive.
The accelerations are small but are enough so that the ship is 
constantly changing its orientation.>>

However that is all it can change with attitude jets. Thus it can spin or
rotate around it's axis, but it can't move rapidly up, down, nor sideways.
Doing so requires a vector change, and at high vectors High Gs are required
to affect a vector change.

I would agree that this would make it terribly difficult, if not impossible,
to dock with the ship. However, it does not significantly impact the ability
to hit the ship. Thus the ship could be hit with a grappel harpoon, and
possibly restrained (depending on relative masses).

Imagine you'r in a sphere, you can rotate it in any direction, but can't move
it. How do you prevent someone from boarding it?

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 12:06:50 -0800
From: "David P. Summers" <dsummers@mail.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Fighters - a response (LONG

Sat, 5 Apr 1997 00:27:40 +1000 (EST), Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
>b) Spacefighters are cool.  So im going to be biased anyways:)

I guess I just don't see why spacefighters are "cool".  They
strike me as an unoriginal approach of just tacking current
military tatics and sticking them onto Traveller.

Large ships, however, harken back to more romantic times
in WWI when large capital ships dueled and and tried
to out maneuver each other.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 15:08:11 -0500
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Submarine fighters

>	OTOH subs operate in water, which seriously affect their sensor
>capabilities, and provides serious constraints on their 3d range of motion
>and construction requirements due to pressure...  in space, you've got
>nice, thin, transparent vacuum.

OTOH spaceships operate on hexmaps, which provide serious constraints on
their 3d range of motion and are designed mostly by gearheads which seriously
affects their construction requirements <g>.

Seriously though, we're also talking about sensor systems in space that don't
exist now, either. So give the subs Traveller sensors, and as I mention in
another
post, a frictionless coating to slip through the water with, and you're back on
track again.

**********************************************************
  Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
 CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 15:00:19 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fighters

In a message dated 4/4/97 6:17:33 AM, Solomani wrote:

<<Your also assuming that Turret mounted weapons can be used against
fighters.  This makes no sense.  A ship would have large weapons
(equivalent to a naval ships Canons) and AA (Point Defense) also a batch
of missles.  The large weapons would be useless against fighters, since
they are designed for Capital ship-to-ship battles.  So there only defense
is AA.  This means that a hell-of-a-lot more fighters are not supperessed
and make it threw to the target and unload there weapons.  They would
would then return to ther ESCORTED carriers to rearm while a second wave
of fighters approach.>>

The problem with this argument is that TNE allows spinal mounts to fire
against fighters (although doing so when more valuable targets were around
would be a waste). A big ship mounts many turrets and bays, which are also
very effective against fighters.


Thirdly, your assuming that the fighters have pee-shooters for weaponry.
This also makes no sense because they would be useless.  They would be
carrying a barrage of missile/torpedo based weaponry, which would do much
more that just 'scrape the hull'.>>

Unfortuately, I haven't really seen much in the way of good missles for TNE,
and designing them in FFS is not much fun.

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 15:08:14 -0500
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Submarine fighters

>for sub-fighters?  Is there a space analogy for the noise problem you
>mentioned wrt subs?  If not, if you could hand-wave away the noise problems
>(loading/unloading done at a safe distance with all rubber parts, or
>something), would that change things?

The space equivalent for noise would be heat radiation and IR signature, and
since it is hand-waved away in the game I think it would be totally fair
for this discussion to wave away the noise problem; either one will throw your
shoulder out <g>.

Another thing that just occurred to me: what about frictionless materials? At 
what TL do they show up (since they are a very OLD standard of sci-fi)? Give a
sub a coating of Slipee(TM) (a product of Better Way Industries, "Letting You
Live in a Better Way!"(TM), available at all Better Starship/Home and Garden
Supply Stores) and it makes the subs=starships analogy even better.

**********************************************************
  Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
 CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 15:00:20 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors

In a message dated 4/4/97 6:37:36 AM, David J. Golden wrote:

<<Again, if you look at the original message,
firing thrusters #1 and #2 results in a net change in my course.>>

True it would change your course, but by how much? If it is just attitude
jets, I would have to say: not much. Even rotating and firing main thrust
might only result in a small adjustment to course if you are travelling at
high velocity (which in interplanetary travel you would be).

All of this seems to bring up the point:

When would a battle and/or boarding action take place?

It would seem uncommon for ships to engage at the high velocities envolved in
interplanetary travel, so I would think that battles would tend to occur only
nearby planets and bases. This type of situation definately favors the
defenders, since they have a homeworld advange. The defenders can rely on
support from planet-based weaponry and other elements of their navy.

It also makes the prospects of piracy a bit dicey. Where would the pirate
ship ambush its prey? Velocity would only be slowed down nearby destination
planets, and most of those would be patrolled by the local navy (and possibly
Imperial). Jump point might not be a good spot since ships can jump in
anywhere outside 100 diameters, and can jump in with any velocity and
bearing.

I think this might make privateering more difficult then the concept of
boarding.

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 10:09:28 -0500
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: Grav Cities in Gas Giants

fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin W. Cain) wrote:
>>>
Has anyone else on TML read Mr. Anthony's _Bio_of_a_Space_Tyrant_
series?
In this series, mankind has *numerous* grav cities floating in the
atmospheres of the gas giants of the solar system.  I find it strange
that
Traveller has postulated numerous grav cities throughout the high-tech
Imperium, but not one of them floating in the upper atmosphere of a gas
giant.  Any ideas how come???
<<<
Well Franklin, this is coming from the really old section of Traveller
players, but there have been floating GG cities around.  In a adventure
published by White Dwarf, a floating city in a gas giant (named New
World with 100's of millions of people on it) contracts the players to
travel to one of their processing stations. I have it at home and it has
to be about 14-15 years old by now. 

Great books, BTW, and I always enjoyed floating cities in Traveller. 
But the reason for not having them are in the adventure. The PC's have
to figure out what is wrong with the station as it sinks down into the
gas giant. The gravity and temperature keep increasing until the PC's
have start making rolls against endurance. If they don't figure it out
in time, POP!, they are crushed.

It is a great starter adventure for new PC's and I have used it many
times. In fact, I may be using it again this weekend!

Bob

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 15:00:38 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Putting FIGHT back into Figher (was Submarine Fighters)

In a message dated 4/4/97 8:10:18 AM, Merrick wrote:

<<Why bother with the fighter?  Any missile that can kill a ship costs
less than the fighter that carries it, and is expendible (unlike a
fighter pilot).
>>

The only reason I can think of is if the fighter has a greater operational
range. In this case, a carrier group would carry fighters (and "bombers", or
missile boats) into battle (the planetary war zone). The group would then
send the fighters and "bombers" in while staying out of the effective range
of the planetary defenders. Under the direction of an ECM ship (an AWACs type
ship), the fighters and bombers would launch their missles once they were in
effective range, then peel off as the main strike fleet closed.

That would be for the element of surprise, and assumes that the fighters and
bombers could close relatively undetected, while the carrier group stayed out
of detection range. Another advantage is that once the fighter/bombers begin
launching, the defenders would probably soon light up their active, spotting
the fighters but turning beacon for the carrier group, which might have a
strike group (cruisers and such) ready to pounce.

The fighter/bombers could then return to the carrier group for a resupply of
missiles.

This would allow the missles to have higher G ratings for shorter durations,
and possibly carry more payload.

___

Now as far as missiles go, how are they done in T4? I haven't seen T4 yet,
but the missle design system in TNE made designing difficult. And the nuclear
pumped x-ray didn't seem  like the best solution. Perhaps I'm just partial to
explosions (they're pretty and make a lot of noise in the target ship).

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 15:00:27 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)

In a message dated 4/4/97 6:20:54 AM, Solomani wrote:

<<>That's all a matter of Gs of acceleration, "top speed" in space is fairly
>close to the speed of light, so there isn't any real top speed. However,
>beyond certain speeds it becomes difficult to engage in space combat,
>since
>no matter how much accleration you can manage, you're still pretty much
>traveling in a straight line.

This is an incorrect assumption.  Top speed is whatever a space craft has
been built to go upto.  Im sure light speed isnt one of them (mayb absurd
speed:).  Each tech level logically would have an upper limit of the
absolute fastest speed it can build engines to.>>

How is it incorrect?

In space, drag is negligible. If you apply thrust you accelerate in the
direction opposite the thrust. The only thing that acts to decellerate you is
drag, which is neglible. Thus you can continue to accelerate infinitely.
There is no additional stress on the vehicle, no air resistance to overcome.
The only limiting factor is relativity, i.e.: the closer you get to the speed
of light the slower time goes. That and fuel.

Each Tech Level has a limit for maximum G (kind of). But this is simply a
matter of acceleration, a 1G ship has the same "maximum speed" as a 6G ship,
the 6G ship can just get there faster.

However, if you have spent the past week (or whatever) in 6G acceleration,
your vector along your heading would be so extreme that you cannot apply
anything but the smallest changes in course. Thus space combat could not
really occur at such speeds, other then a basic slugfest (after vectors have
been matched) or a rapid exchange of fire (when vectors intersect or come
close). There could be no dogfighting, jinking, or maneuvering for position.
This is why I think space battles would chiefly occur around worlds, gas
giants, and space stations.

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 14:57:51 -0500
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)

So, the question is do Space Fighters make sense?
We will agree to disagree, and that is fine (g) because you like
fighters and want to use them in your universe. So do I, but they do not
work. I will pull a few examples and lets further the discussion.


Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au> wrote:
>>>
SNIP
Unless economics are really different in the Imperium as opposed to
earth
today, it will definetly be more cost effective to build a high speed,
well armed, highly maneuvrable 10t Fighter as  opposed to a Dreadnaught
with the same capabilities. =20
SNIP
<<<
I agree with the first point, but just because you can build them does
not make them more effective :)

>>>
Effectiveness
- - -------------
How effective would a fighter be?  I think quite effective.  Militaraly
a
10t fighter is more expendable then a 100,000t Battleship.  Also 10t
fighters would be easier to replace.
<<<
Yes. MOTO:)

>>>
Fighters would be quite versatile as well.  Fighters could more easily
(and cheaply) be used for planetary warfare, so there dual role would be
valuable.
<<<
Their only role, IMHO

>>>
Some people have argued that they couldnt carry the firepower to effect
a
Battleship.  I disagree.  Stick a fusion bomb or Fission torpedo on
these
babies (the equavilent to a Torpedo) and they could wreck havoc on any
heavily armoured vessel.
<<<
Nuclear Dampers, and destroyed before they get close. And in traveller,
we have only those little factor X missles. I have not seen any large
ship killing mssiles. Even Factor 9 misslies (that are too large for
fighters) will only do minor damage to Big ship. That is a problem with
the game design IMHO, and that is why James and I are working to fix it.


>>>
Also, the ability to mass hundreds and maybe even thousands of these
babies would make them an irresistable force.  No matter how big a
battleship is or how heavily armed or armoured it is no way it would
have the Point Defense (AA) to handle such an onslaught.  No one could
conceivably argue (effectively) that a battleship could handle 100 or a
thousand fusion torpedos/missles.
>>>
Um, sorry. I do not care how many targets you put out there IF we are
talking about two equal forces. One has BB, the other CV and fighters. =20

Lets look at some basic assumptions:
First, today=92s navy.
For many years the Navy has had to defend the big CV. Why? Too easy for
missiles to destroy.
But the CV has survived, Why? Because the aircraft carry missiles. Big
ship killing missiles. (On another point, the old USSR was very
concerned when the old US Battleships were returned to service, because
the missile war heads had been reduced and would no longer do much
damage to those ships)=20
This ability to stand off and launch big missiles is what makes the
fleet focused on the CV. You have the horizon to hide behind, the
fighters do not have to get close, and weapons that can hurt big ships.=20

In Traveller, fighters have no weapons that can cripple any big ship.
Those factor 1 and 2 missiles will not even dent the sand thrown up by
any capital ship. The EM energy alone could blind most fighters small
computers and sensors. (In space you have to have huge antenna for
resolution) so you would have to get VERY close in space. That means
that the big ship has all the time in the world to pick you off.
Starting at about 150,000 km fighters would be targets. The faster they
go to close range, the more predictable their path would be, easier to
hit.=20

>>>
After the battle, whos won both militaraly and economically?  The guy
who
lost the 100,000t Battleship or the side that lost 100 fighters?  Dont
forget, lives are generally more expendable then hardware.
<<<
Whoa!!! DO NOT SAY THAT IN FRONT OF ANY PILOT!!
Not ever :)  Why do you think the United States does everything in its
power to rescue downed pilots. They are the least expendable part of the
combination. That type of thinking is what ruined many air forces
throughout history.
Years of training, building of morale, vs one aircraft. No contest.

>>>
Another poster made the point that even in modern naval warfare planes
are
not very effective against modern Point Defense.  I disagree.  If this
were so why was the last great Battleship engagement was France, 1940?
Also, why do modern Navies still rely on Carriers and land based
aircraft
over battleships?  Because no matter how good or how massed your point
defense is, it wont hit everytime.  Fighters will get threw. =20
<<<
No they wont. Not with equal numbers. Why do fighters carry missiles and
not bombs today. Because the SAM and close air defense will destroy any
and all aircraft within range. These weapon systems are designed to
shoot down missiles that are traveling at Mach speeds, on the deck, and
most aircraft can not do that.  They are considered sitting ducks by the
computers who control the system. If I remember correctly the Phalanx
fires about 1000 rounds per min and tracks each bullet individually to
measure how far it missed by, to correct for the next bullet! I watched
as one chewed up a drone, and then went after the chunks as they
scattered across the ocean, shredding them into even smaller chunks.
Many pilots agreed that even if you ejected, all you would be is another
target. Not a picture the pilots wanted to see. =20
Let me ask why the last great air to ship bomb attack was the
Falklands.  Because the Argentine air force only had a few missiles. So
they had to drop bombs on a fleet. No out on the opne water where they
would have been picked off, but stuck in close to islands (great cover).
On the open sea, with some advance warning it was a different story. The
British had missiles (on a SUB!) and the entire Argentine fleet stayed
in port!!=20

Every ship that his been hit during the past twenty years, to the best
of my recollection, has been hit by missiles.  The British did get hit
by some bombs (dropped too low and did not arm, a good thing, if they
had gone off the aircraft that dropped it would have been damaged), but
the most devastating damage was done by missiles. Also the Argentine air
force had to fly at 10 - 30 feet off the water to avoid being destroyed.
The missile systems and guns have gotten too good so you have to stay
down low and avoid radar coverage and get mixed up in the clutter. Where
do your fighters hide in space?


>>>
SNIP
In a
naval battle the number of attacking craft are usually in the hundreds,
if
there land based attacker, there in the thousands.  I can tell you now,
that the planes will come back with a lot less damage then the
completely
destroyed capital ship.  The aircraft will fight again, but the ship
will not.
<<<

Most actions do not involve 100s of aircraft today. Only if it is a
major war. 100s of missiles are another story. I was in a naval exercise
back in the 80=92s where we launched over 300 (SIMULATED) missiles at the
main Russian fleet. NONE got through. If that had been aircraft, NOBODY
would have returned. Try and convince that next crew to get into the
fighters.

>>>
So they are cost effective.
<<<

Not with those odds. Only if they can return and launch the next wave of
missiles that can actualy do something.

In Traveller that means that you will have to stand off with ship
killing missiles that DO NOT EXIST and launch at targets locked on with
sensors that DO NOT EXIST while hiding behind some horizon or cover that
DOES NOT EXIST to be effective.  So in Traveller, as we understand the
technology and weapons, fighters are reduced to being a small boat with
machine guns that somebody else mentioned.=20

>>>
snip about WW2 stuff that does not apply

Not really, since most of these weapons will be designed for larger ship
targeting. =20
<<<

In space that does not apply. The range is what throws most people off.
We are talking about firing from one end of the earth to the other, and
that is close range!


<<<
>Also, i would assume that a fighter could get to its top speed a whole
>lot
>faster than a large ship.>>
>
>That's all a matter of Gs of acceleration, "top speed" in space is fairl=
y
>close to the speed of light, so there isn't any real top speed. However,
>beyond certain speeds it becomes difficult to engage in space combat,
>since
>no matter how much accleration you can manage, you're still pretty much
>traveling in a straight line.

This is an incorrect assumption.  Top speed is whatever a space craft
has
been built to go upto.  Im sure light speed isnt one of them (mayb
absurd
speed:).  Each tech level logically would have an upper limit of the
absolute fastest speed it can build engines to.
<<<<

Speed and combat in space do not relate at all to ground base combat. In
space there is no upper limit on how fast a ship can go, until you start
getting close to light speed. Look at the small probes we have launched.
No engines to speak of, but through the use of gravity and slingshot
effects they are really moving now. (somebody correct me, but is
100,000+ kph about right?)And it still takes them YEARS to reach the
edge of our solar system.

In Closing:
I will not, nor will anyone else stop you from using fighters. They are
lots of fun and many people will believe in them based on Star Wars and
other shows. However, within Traveller rules, and our best guess about
reality, (such as that is:) fighters are about as useful as pigs in
space.

So, Launch the fighters and fire the wave motion gun!! Its a game!

Bob (Reality Sucks)

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 13:07:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Trent Smith <tfsmith@POMONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: First Survey and Massilia Sector (longish)

     Just another painful reminder of how obviously-random and thuroughly
worthless (even disregarding the major bugs) the First Survey book is.  I
hate to sound like I'm saying "I told you so," but I have to imagine that
a scheme of a few important detailed worlds and everything else minimally
detailed, like I was advocating way back when, couldn't have been any
worse or less useful than what we have now.  Sure we'd have had to make
everything up ourselves, but as it currently stands we still have to make
up most of the stuff (at least if we want it to make sense) with the
additional aggravation that, in doing so, we're violating official
"canon."
     Oh well, it's too late for useful complaints now.  I just seriously
hope that Emperor's Arsenal and the Ref Screen are about 500 times better.

Freshly re-disheartened,

Trent Smith

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 16:11:00 -0500
From: Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org>
Subject: Re: Fighter Design

<QUOTE MODE ON>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 97 10:17:53 -0500
From: Lewis Roberts <lewis@chara.gsu.edu>
Subject: Fighter Design

Everyone seems to be arguing over how effective space fighters are.
Some people say they are useless for attacking Capital ships, some say
they should be kings of teh spaceways.  The major problem is that for
T4, we have no fighters to argue about.  The three in Starships are
broken.  The other Traveller incarnations aren't much better off.  TNE
had the Rampart and the Wildbat. CT and MT had a few.

I say we make the next THUDD about designing fighters.  They are pretty
intersting to build.  We would have to agree on a mission
specification.  Heavy fighter, light fighter, long range patrol craft
(week duration), short range patrol craft, sensor/picket fighter,
ground attack, but once you have one built, it is easy enough to
modifiy it to another mission.

Once we have these made up, we can start arguing with some facts to back it 
up.

What do you say?

Lewis Roberts
PS I think Fighters are useless for attacking capital ships, but pretty
good at attacking civilian ships, undefended and lightly defended
civilian installations, such as mining colonies, asteroid cities, etc.
 - -----------------------------------------------------------------
Q:Why does a cow wear a bell?
A:Because its horns don't work.

lewis@chara.gsu.edu
http://www.chara.gsu.edu/~lewis/roberts.html

<QUOTE MODE OFF>

HERE HERE!

Yes, I think we should begin fixing the fighter problem.  Actualy, the boyz 
in X-TEK R&D have already begun building fighters.  Look for them soon on 
the PLanet X homepage.  In designing the fighters i discovered only  that 
designing the sensor system is imposible with QSDS or SSDS, unless al you 
wan is to put lowsy civilan packages on the things.  I have an Idea that VDS 
was used to make the ones in the books, mind you I will concurr that those 
designs are broken.  I think i will sen the first fighter entry, as i alrady 
have my 10Td XTF-1A Alpha Fighter Ready.  It's your basic fighter, pulling 
6G's with t-plates, with EMMasking and powered by a Fusion+ (of course).  It 
carries a Standard Military Laser System and 2 Missile 'pods' Capable of 
launching a standard ships missile or 0.5td of oridinace per pod.  Its an 
Airfame Flying Wedge(wing) configuration, reminicent of the early stealth 
fighters of late 20th century Terra.

Most of you on ISBA also know of mine and Baron Colsworth's Missile boat 
project.  A 70td heavy fighter/bomber using Colsworths missile system.  This 
boat would be able to launch many missiles at other fighters or a full salvo 
at a capital ship.

Just because I jumped the gun a bit don't mean the rest of y'all should be 
intimmidated.  I would love to see the ISBA, and non-aligned Shipbuiders 
alike start designing fighters. Personaly, and this is in no way a slur to 
his majesty,  I think the old Zhunastu Fighters of the early imperial 
expanision era are a bit outdated.  Sure, the workd well against the 
Chanestins, but its the 3rd decade already.  How do we know that the 
Wolflike aliens to core dont have fighters?  Or the Solomani States to rim?

From the Commander at the office
(Pay no attention to that man behind the Black Curtain...
It's only Lucan <G>)  

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1137
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Friday, April 4 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1138



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Zho loss of 5FW
Re: Submarine Fighters
Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters
Re: Rotating ships
Re: Fighters (long)
Re: AWACS Starships and Zhodani
Re: Fighters
Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters
Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)
Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
System Generator
Re: Fighters vs Capital Ships
Re: Experience Points?
Re: Submarine Fighters
Re[2]: Fighters - a response (LONG
Re: Rotating ships
Re: matching vectors (new questions)

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 16:21:37 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Zho loss of 5FW

In a message dated 4/4/97 7:40:32 PM, you wrote:

<<Now to my answer for boarding actions.  Psionic
teleportation.  OOO - AAA, I love Zhodani boarding
actions.  Why the hell the Zhos lost the 5FW I'll
never know!!!>>

They didn't they withdrew. The Zhos had no interest in conquering the 3rd
Imperium, only in keeping the Impirium from considering the Consulate for
conquest. All the frontier wars were designed simply as distractions to keep
the Imperium from thinking of conquest.

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 16:21:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

   Hi.

> From: MrkGrismer@aol.com

> In TNE you can
> have more then 6G acceleration.

   In TNE, big ships as well as fighters can have more than 6G
   acceleration.  This is why there are no real fighters in Trav, only
   "gunboats".  If you want fighters to be feasable, you'll need to make
   some rules up that give them an advantage over big ships.  The
   current rules treat them exactly like big ships, only smaller.

   -Rob

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 14:35:22 -0700 (MST)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters

 
> <<missiles don't really
> need to be carried to the target.>>
> 
> Don't they? Missles don't have as much range as a fighter (and a fighter
> doesn't usually have as much range as a carrier).

*blink*  missiles have infinite range.  I let them coast towards
your fleet from a distance, and when they get within a single turn's
burn of a target, BOOM.

- -Merrick

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

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 16:21:37 -0500 (EST)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Rotating ships

In a message dated 4/4/97 7:17:12 PM, you wrote:

<<Clearly C is the best choice. With A, you're _required_ to roll your
ship in order to get maximum sensor coverage. With B it's the same,
but the complexity of the rotation _can_ be great, depending upon the
distribution of the arrays. With C you don't need to rotate.
>>

I don't see how there is any complexity to the rotation. If you scatter your
arrays over the long axis of the ship, and spin it along that axis, you get
full coverage. Works just like a rotating radar, which is what EVERYTHING
uses today (except nosemount aircraft targeting, or boresight, radars).

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 21:25:25 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Fighters (long)

On Fri, 04 Apr 1997 12:35:57 -0500, you wrote:

> At 11:39 PM 4/4/97 +1200, you wrote:
>=20
> >However one should be aware of the very
> >real disadvantages of such craft: virtualy no defences, very limited =
EW
> >capacity and very poor targeting.
>=20
> Wait a second, why exactly would a small craft have very poor =
targeting.  I
> would agree that the range would be less, 'cause the sensor suite is
> probably smaller, but the targeting should be superb for the range of =
it's
> weapons.
>=20
> >Carrying a weapon is very different from being able to target with it.
> >The biggest weapon in the world is of little use if you can't hit with=
 it.
> >In space combat the velocity are going to so great that you're going =
to
> >have very short engagement times. Therefore you are going to need some
> >very effective targeting and control; and there will be a minimum size=
 craft
> >required to mount it.
>=20
> What about weapons that carry there own targetting systems, ala the
> Phoenix?  If ship could close to a distance where it could detect a =
target,
> it could fire its missles (or torpedos or whatever).  They should be =
able
> to finish the job from there.  Hey modern day weapons have very =
effective
> targeting system, and they're much smaller than a 10 ton space fighter.

Today's fighters can engage air targets at ranges of no more than
100km (or so), while engaging surface targets at roughly half that
distance.  Traveller fighter sensors allow them to actively engage
targets a thousand times further away.  This would require some
powerful sensor arrays by today's standards (compared to a modern-day
fighter).

BTW, the new F23 is approximately 66 feet long if memory serves,
comparable to a Traveller 10t fighter.

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 13:27:07 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: AWACS Starships and Zhodani

At 08:59 PM 4/3/97 -0500, J. Raynor wrote:

>Referring to the "Lensman" series makes me wonder about the role (if any)
>of telepaths and clairvoyants in the Zhodani fleet.  Although it probably
>wouldn't happen, because the distances between vessels is so great, it's
>very easy to envision a Zhodani admiral, snapping out orders to a crowd of
>attentive telepaths, who then relay those orders to telepaths aboard other
>vessels.  Meanwhile, aboard the Imperial warships that Zhodani fleet is
>about to engage, the officers in charge of electronic warfare are audibly
>grinding their teeth down with frustration, fully aware of what those
>dirty brain-raping Zho-ies are up to, but powerless to stop them...

In my opinion, units that are tasked with fighting the Zhodani would be
equipped with psionic shields as a matter of basic issue.

Large items, from grav tanks to Tigress-class BBs, would probably have psi
shields built into the structure.

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   clown outfits.       -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 13:27:14 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Fighters

At 12:40 AM 4/5/97 +1000, "Solomani" wrote:

>Your assuming that theres no surprise, which is a major part of any naval
>(space) battle.  If you can say "midway" you should also know that the
>americans took the japanese by surprise, and both were carrier fleets.

Please explain, in some detail, how exactly you are going to use the weather
to hide a fleet in space.  Or are you also assuming that in every battle one
side will have cracked the other's codes.

>Your also assuming that Turret mounted weapons can be used against
>fighters.  This makes no sense.  A ship would have large weapons
>(equivalent to a naval ships Canons) and AA (Point Defense) also a batch
>of missles.  The large weapons would be useless against fighters, since
>they are designed for Capital ship-to-ship battles.

Well, If I wanted to waste my time lining up the spinal mount for a shot at
a fighter, I could do it.  I have designed a 90kton battleship, and it has
350 laser turrets.  More than enough to discourage any group of fighters.

>  So there only defense
>is AA.  This means that a hell-of-a-lot more fighters are not supperessed
>and make it threw to the target and unload there weapons.  They would
>would then return to ther ESCORTED carriers to rearm while a second wave
>of fighters approach.

Meanwhile my Battleships are boosting towards your carrier.  Since I'm
heading straight for it, and your fighters have to change course and begin
heading back, what do you want to bet that your flying repair station is
toast by the time you get there?

>Thirdly, your assuming that the fighters have pee-shooters for weaponry.
>This also makes no sense because they would be useless.  They would be
>carrying a barrage of missile/torpedo based weaponry, which would do much
>more that just 'scrape the hull'.

Not if my armor is thick enough.  My "Royal" class BB is heavy enough to
require me to recalculate drive effiency due to the density of the thing.

You are basically strapping a trained pilot onto a missile to do a job that
a Gunner's Mate, 2nd Class should be doing in the Combat Command Center:
guiding missiles onto the target.

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   clown outfits.       -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 13:27:09 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters

At 04:33 AM 4/5/97 +1000, you wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Bruce Alan Macintosh wrote:
 
>> Anyone who's mental image of space combat has fighters swooping along the
>> length of giant space dreadnaughts is completely wrong.
>> 
>> Let's compare 500x10-ton fighters to 1x50,000-ton battlerider 
>> (so that Jump drives don't get
>> in the way and mess things up.) The battlerider will be just as high-
>> acceleration as the fighters for a given amount of money spent on
>> maneuver drives. Since the battlerider has a much lower surface-to-volume
>
>This is not economical though, which is the whole point of fighters.  The
>American navy could (theoritically) build a Battleship (HS) which could
>travel as fast as a speed boat - but why would they?  Its redundent - no
>military advantage - and above all else, its expensive, VERY expensive.

Actually, the Iowa class BB was very fast, faster than some of the
destroyers that were supposed to escort it.

A F-14D SuperCat costs in the $35 million range, plus about 1.5 million to
train one crew for it.  About 18 planes per squadron.  A little over 650
million dollars for one squadron!  Add in the cost of maintenance and fuel,
and you'll see that modern fighters are not economical.

>> ratio, it will have *much* thicker armour for a given amount of mass/volume
>> devoted to armour. The fighters *don't* carry the same weapons as the 
>> battleriders, not really - to damage a heavily armoured target you need
>> a whopping great meson gun or PA spinal mount, which you can't fit in a 
>> ten-ton fighter. The fighter's weapons will bounce off the battlerider.
>
>This logic also doesnt follow in the real world.  Remember, none of us
>have been on a Space battleship (Aurora class:) so we can only compare
>our theories to real world examples (as close as possible any way).  How
>were the Japanese able to destroy the Prince Of Wales and its
>sister ship in ww2 just with naval based air power?  
>
>The prince of wales and sister were the best Battleships the british had,
>also the newest. most heavily armed and armoured, bristly with AA.  The
>japanese lost no planes, the ships were sunk in a matter of hours. 

The dive-bombers hid in the clouds, and the torpedo-bombers flew close to
the surface.  Neither of these tactics will work in deep space.  Also, in
the example given, target detection was still a function of the Mk 1
eyeball, as most ships didn't have reliable radar at that point. 

>If a fighter has the right weaponry (For space combat i would say missiles
>and space bombs with proxiamety charges) it just doesnt matter how thick
>the armour is.  People seem to think fighters are one shot weapons, there
>not.  They hit in waves, first waves drops there payload, returns to
>carrier, refuels and rearms.  While this is going on the second and third
>waves have hit.  A Battleship can only take so much damage from Nuclear
>warheads and Fusion/Fission/Anti-Matter bombs.

But if I see you coming 90,000km away?  A capital ship will have cruisers
that can devote a great amount of firepower to breaking up your fighter
formation.

>Armour is a measure of endurance in these sort of battles, not a guarntee
>of safety.

Did you know that an Iowa class Battleship's waist armor can bounce a
Harpoon anti-ship missile?  Which, by the way, is the largest AS missile
carried by fighter aircraft.

>> One might argue that the fighters are smaller, possibly more agile (since
>> they can rotate faster to change the angle of their thrust) and hence
>> harder to hit. However, such advantages only matter at moderate-to-long
>> ranges; at short ranges (<30,000km), no amount of agility can stop a good
>> closed-loop laser tracking system from hitting. A single hit from a
>> laser turret will destroy a fighter, so the fighters (to be effective)
>> have to stay at long ranges (not very exciting or heroic) plinking away
>> with lasers. You might as well put all the lasers on a battlerider where
>> you can protect them with some armour in the first place.
>> 
>
>I dont think this is plausiable either.  Your assuming that fighters are
>one-hit weapons and that they have no counter measures.  I also think its
>absurd that you effectively state that a fighters agility is helpful at
>medium to long ranges, but useless at short ranges.  At short ranges is
>where it counts.

Then why does the US Navy plan on expending 2/3 of its fighters' weaponry at
beyond visual range?  The AIM-54C Phoenix missile has a range of over 100
miles!  The AMRAAM nearly 60.. All modern anti-ship weapons are designed to
be fired from long ranges.  This is because, even in our TL8 world, if you
can see it you cna kill it.  In space, there is no horizon to hide behind,
no clouds to mask your approach.. the moment you start an intercept course,
the target knows you are coming, and will start trying to kill you.

>Aircraft won because of speed and agility, and being able to deliver
>high-powered explosives without being hit, and being able to do this
>repeatedly. 

Aircraft won because they could strike before the target could react.
Period. Now, we have refined Air Defence to the point where manned fighters
react too slowly to survive.  So now the emphasis is switched to drones such
as the Tomahawk cruise missle.  Even the AIM-54 is self guiding in the
terminal phase, and the Air Force is developing fire and forget missles that
acquire their own targets, and communicate among themselves to insure even
target distribution!

>How wouldnt this hold true in Traveller?

Because speed is relative.  A 6-g fighter that has been accelerating for 20
minutes is a lot slower than a 1-g BB that has been thrusting for a day.
Unless your closing velocity is faster than my computer can react to, I'm
going to target your fighter.  Why not just save the space for the fighter,
its crew and maintenance folks, and launch tube, and just add missile
storage and MFDs?

>Also, your speed boat analogy is good, but still wrong.  Its still
>2-dimensional.

The same problem applies to your WWII examles.

>> Even in the Real World, modern point defences have changed the roles of
>> aircraft - imagine trying to dive-bomb a modern CG; you'd be eaten
>> for breakfast. To have any hope of dropping an actual iron bomb on a ship
>> you need to come in at very low level (like in the Falklands) at an
>> opponent with highly inadequate point defence (like in the Falklands.)
>> There's no analogy to "coming in low" in space...

>Thats why AC weaponry has increased in range and accuracy.  I also dont
>believe point defense is as effective as you claim.  500 planes swoop down
>on a ship, and its dead baby.  Point defense may take down a few, but
>the rest are still going to deliver there payload.

Modern fighters are referred to as weapons platforms for a reason.. They
exist solely to deliver munitions.  In the ship attack role, that is done by
launching Harpoons from 40+ miles away.. *Nobody* directly attacks a naval
formation, since every naval vessel in the world has SAMs and guns just for
knocking down pesky aircraft.

This brings me back to my point:  since all you're going to do is launch a
missile, wouldn't it be better to launch from a well protected ship with a
MFD?  

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   clown outfits.       -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 16:40:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)

   Hi.

> From: MrkGrismer@aol.com

> In space, drag is negligible. If you apply thrust you accelerate in the
> direction opposite the thrust. The only thing that acts to decellerate you is
> drag, which is neglible. Thus you can continue to accelerate infinitely.
> There is no additional stress on the vehicle, no air resistance to overcome.
> The only limiting factor is relativity, i.e.: the closer you get to the speed
> of light the slower time goes. That and fuel.

   Very well put.

> However, if you have spent the past week (or whatever) in 6G acceleration,
> your vector along your heading would be so extreme that you cannot apply
> anything but the smallest changes in course. Thus space combat could not
> really occur at such speeds, other then a basic slugfest (after vectors have
> been matched) or a rapid exchange of fire (when vectors intersect or come
> close). There could be no dogfighting, jinking, or maneuvering for position.

   (Donning professorial robes and beginning a physics lecture) Ahem,
   not true at all.  If the two beligerants have matched vectors (and if
   they are close enough to one another) then they can dogfight quite
   nicely.  If their vectors are matched, then they are standing still
   relative to one another.  When they turn on their drives, they
   accelerate, decelerate, and alter course about one another exactly
   like they would if they started from rest --- because really, they
   /are/ starting at rest.

   Unfortunately, none of the tactical combat systems introduced sinced
   "Mayday" can accurately simulate this physical fact.

> This is why I think space battles would chiefly occur around worlds, gas
> giants, and space stations.

   Well, mostly battles occur around things of value.  Interplanetary
   space is not usually very valuable.  So I agree with your conclusion,
   but not with your reasoning.

   -Rob

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 14:55:26 -0700
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors

MrkGrismer@aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 4/4/97 6:24:22 AM, Erwin Fritz wrote:
> 
> Jiggling is produced by the steering jets, not the maneuver drive.
> The accelerations are small but are enough so that the ship is
> constantly changing its orientation.>>
> 
> However that is all it can change with attitude jets. Thus it can spin or
> rotate around it's axis, but it can't move rapidly up, down, nor sideways.

Sure it can, depending upon how you define "rapid". If I can spin in
any direction, I can use those same jets to slide in any direction.
Not as quickly as the maneuver drive would do it, but still effective
enough to block boarding attempts.

The term "rapid" implies speed. Accelerating long enough produces
speed. That's why the M-drive is "faster"; it has more acceleration.
In theory, I can use just steering jets to go to the moon. In practice,
that would take longer than my one-month fuel supply would allow.

> Doing so requires a vector change, and at high vectors High Gs are required
> to affect a vector change.
> 
No. High Gs are required to effect a vector change rapidly. If I
walk east, Newton's Third Law says I'm slowing the Earth's rotation
by a VERY small amount. I'm accelerating, just not that fast.

> I would agree that this would make it terribly difficult, if not impossible,
> to dock with the ship. However, it does not significantly impact the ability
> to hit the ship. Thus the ship could be hit with a grappel harpoon, and
> possibly restrained (depending on relative masses).

Agreed.

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 15:18:37 -0700
From: Eric Holmes <holmes_eric_t@lanl.gov>
Subject: System Generator

I was flipping thru the Traveller Ring and found
an on-line star system generator.  I forgot to book
mark it in my excitement when I found such a 
neat tool.  Where is it and whose was it?

Thanks

Eric

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

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 22:13:25 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Fighters vs Capital Ships

On Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:54:11 -0500 (EST), you wrote:

> One day, you engage the enemy (a strange looking vessel without a =
spinal
> mount - easy target!) and before you manage to close in close enough
> to loose your meson gun, the enemy ship disgorges a couple hundred =
ships
> that are about 50td each. Huh? What do you shoot them with? You've got =
a
> few missles, but not enough. You have a few point defence lasers, but =
not
> that many. What the hell is powering those things? You've got the meson
> gun, but it can't come to bear fast enough on those things (which are =
probably
> pulling 6 or more Gs, with pilots in acceleration tanks). Sure you're
> heavily armoured, but they can get real close and punch through the =
soft=20
> parts - probably even firing right into the main meson firing tube!!
> This is not looking good. You'd run, but they can chase you. Hopefully =
you're
> not too close to a gravity well to jump...

I do not discount the high probability of such an encounter, and as a
work of fiction, it could be considered highly accurate.

Traveller, however, is a RPG with a limited selection of rules.  No
version of the traveller ship combat rules would allow fighters to
"get real close and punch through the soft parts" of the target's
armour.  Armour is armour, and it is all equally effective regardless
of facing or location (even the maneuver drive T-plates/HEPlaR ports
are considered armoured under the rules).  Considering that the armour
of such a Capital ship was designed to defend it against powerful PA
spinal mounts, it should be suffice to defend it against fighter
lasers and most missile attacks.

The physics of the situation, regardless of the tech level (TL11-13),
would still make it more effective to simply use massive missile
volleys when combating heavily armed and armoured targets, instead of
more expensive fighters.  Fighters would still be highly useful versus
smaller targets, however, as well as many of the other roles we
typically associate with modern attack aircraft.
=20
> Now, this sort of situation wouldn't last long - maybe a century until =
all
> the old ships get destroyed and ship yards have had time to turn out
> ships that are bristling with a mixture of small, medium and large =
weapons.
> In that century though, the Sylean Federation becomes the Third =
Imperium.

I doubt it would take that long (ie: a century) to change space combat
doctrines, especially considering the military actions taking place
around Year 0.  A larger number of missile batteries would probably be
the first steps to match the fighters offensively, followed by an
increased use in laser weaponry for point-defense.

> That's why fighters will beat big ships IN YEAR 0. General comparisons
> of capital ships vs fighters are too vague to be meaningful.

In fiction-- and in Real Life(tm) for that matter-- things could very
much turn out as you describe.  The rules, OTOH, do not allow the
recreation of such a scenario, however (eg: armour penetration).

If rules did exist for variable armour thicknesses, then a group of
fighters could conceivably inflict heavy damage (albeit, at the loss
of many of their fellow pilots).

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 16:19:06 -0600 (CST)
From: "Peter  H. Brenton" <pete@cummings.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Experience Points?

On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Jeff Harvey wrote:

> Okay, it's the rookie referee again, with another question that is
> obvious to most of you, but could use a little elaboration for myself.

Actually this is an oft debated and difficult question. 

> 
> 	Is there a system for awarding experience points to players?  I guess
> that I would just like to know how other referees award experience
> points, and what is a relative average of experience points to award per
> gaming session.  Again, any thoughts or information are appreciated.
> 

There are many good home grown systems, some complicated some not.  I
refrain from "awarding" based on "good role-playing".  People who can act
would get all the points.  Not fair.

Basically, I favor the systems where a player "works out" to get strength,
or "practices technique" to get skill levels.  Now this method leaves
somewhat to be desired since I refuse to codify it for the players, but it
basically goes as follows;

Attributes that can be practices or built up (Str, Dex, Edu) may be built
up independently.

Skills that can be practiced in which the character has at least a one
(gun combat, fencing, forgery, computer) may be increased independently.

Skills that require either a major resource (laboratory, library, etc) or
an instructor cannot be increased in the course of an adventure.
Increasing such a skill can be done if the character leaves off
adventuring and enters school, if they qualify, and if they have the funds
or whatever as appropriate.

To increase a skill or attribute which can be increased the character has
to spend *about* 20 hours per week (increased as the level of skill being 
sought increases) for 3 months (12 weeks) or equivalent, within reason.
So they can spend 12 hours a day, 5 days a week (60 hours) for 4 weeks.
Major interuptions are a problem, and if a character is working on a skill
and is interrupted for more than a couple of days (discretionary based on
the skill) I will subtract a week from their tally.

After the requisite period the player rolls the controlling attribute or
less on 1+desired skill level, all ones being auto success, all 6's auto
failure.  If the roll fails, his next atempt - 3 months later - is at +1.

So Jack practices to get unarmed melee 3.  After spending 4 hours a day
inand out of jump for three months practicing he rolls against his
strength, which is 9.  He rolls 4 dice (1+ desired skill level 3) trying
for a 9 or less and gets a 13, guess he'll be practicing another 12 weeks.

Other Factors;

Instructor with instruction plus skill; Roll one less die for each
instruction level. The instructor can only help up to their level in the
desired skill or instruction, whichever is less.

Factor Zero skills can be taught by anyone with a level 2 or better in the
skill (i.e. instruction not needed), but are earned just like the other
skills above (but note that the "success roll" is one die vs attribute -
usually pretty easy) I usually rule that level zero skills go away if not
utilized regularly (kinda like CPR certification). 

Help from a person without instruction skill will give a +1 to the success
roll if they have one level of skill higher than the desired skill level.


Pete

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 22:45:29 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

On Fri, 4 Apr 1997 00:49:56 +0100, you wrote:

> In CT and MT, the fighters would have an advantage that they could =
mount 40
> off triple turrets between them. The 1000 Te capital ship can only =
mount 10
> turrets.... Not sure about T4, as the designs I've tried were QSDS and =
had
> limited numbers of weapons. Hence, the fighters would have an offensive
> edge, especially if you group them as batteries.

This was determined to be an artificial limitation to starship design.
The rules for TNE and T4 place weapons according to the calculated
surface area of hulls of different displacements and configurations.

As for grouping all of the weapons of a fighter squadron into a single
battery, I do not believe this is possible in any rendition of the
Traveller rules.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 16:33:13 -0800
From: Danny_M._Moody@mailhost.bridge.com (Danny M. Moody)
Subject: Re[2]: Fighters - a response (LONG

>Sat, 5 Apr 1997 00:27:40 +1000 (EST), Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
>>b) Spacefighters are cool.  So im going to be biased anyways:)
>
>I guess I just don't see why spacefighters are "cool".  They
>strike me as an unoriginal approach of just tacking current
>military tatics and sticking them onto Traveller.
>
>Large ships, however, harken back to more romantic times
>in WWI when large capital ships dueled and and tried
>to out maneuver each other.
>
>_______________________________________________________________
>DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

With some of the time scales of starship combat, and the ability to see targets 
*much* farther than weapon ranges, there are some remarkable similarities to the
old rag-wagons of the Age of Sail.  I've always considered Traveller starship 
combat much like that if 'feel'.

- -Vanya

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 15:51:03 -0700
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Rotating ships

MrkGrismer@aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 4/4/97 7:17:12 PM, you wrote:
> 
> <<Clearly C is the best choice. With A, you're _required_ to roll your
> ship in order to get maximum sensor coverage. With B it's the same,
> but the complexity of the rotation _can_ be great, depending upon the
> distribution of the arrays. With C you don't need to rotate.
> >>
> 
> I don't see how there is any complexity to the rotation. If you scatter your
> arrays over the long axis of the ship, and spin it along that axis, you get
> full coverage. Works just like a rotating radar, which is what EVERYTHING
> uses today (except nosemount aircraft targeting, or boresight, radars).

Agreed. But what if you have an irregular hull and you scatter things
in oddball places. You seem to be making the assumption that 
spaceships have symmetrical, smooth hulls with no nooks or crannies.
What if you have a planetoid? An unstreamlined, asymmetrical ship?
These configurations means that you can't evenly distribute your
sensor arrays and, therefore, that rotating on a single axis won't
work.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 17:44:30 -0600
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

At 02:24 AM 4/4/97 PST, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:
>In mail you write:
>
>> I would attest that today an F-117 at night could get with in 20 feet of a
>> C-130, even if the C-130 knew it was out there and trying to get close.
>> When you move to the world of Starships, zero-g, armored hulls etc. That
>> "F-117" could not only get with in 20 feet of the "Cargo Plane", it could
>> potentially lock on.
>
>Sorry, but there's a major problem here. Ships *will* have IR sensors,
>simply necause that's the best *passive* means of spotting things. and
>actually *better* than active radar at spotting objects a long ways
>off. 
>

Part of the above I agree with in Passive sensors should always have a
greater range than active sensors. The part I disagree with is the heat/IR
part, in T4/MT/TNE there has been "handwaving" regarding heat
generation/radiation in spacecraft. If we accept the "Handwaving" regarding
the heat build up then the IR signature of target will not be what it
should be by todays tech. If we do not accept the "Handwaving" then the
entire ship system is truly Pooched. So I for one, have to accept the
"Handwaving" regarding the heat generation/radiation. So with "handwaving"
mode engaged the IR signature will not be as pronounced.

>On IR, your F-117 is the equivalent of a road flare. The backgound
>(empty space) is at 3K. The life support areas of the ship are at 300K
>(read, 100 *million* times as bright). The engineering spaces and
>especially the engines or drive may have substantial areas at 3000k or
>higher (read one *trillion* times as bright as the background). 
>

Yes very true, but what about the point when the IR level falls below the
detection threshold of the IR sensor. 

A crude example would be the mark one naked eye looking at the
constellation of Orion, under a cloudless, night under perfect conditions,
the MK 1 would see the pattern of the constellation, but not the many other
stars that you could see the telescope or the Hubble. The mk 1 would
perceive the non detectable stars as blackness.

The distance from the IR source and detection sensor factors into the
ability of the sensors to detect the IR source.

>That'd be like trying to sneak up on the cargo plane while aiming
>landing lights at the pilot!
>

But under daylight conditions using leading edge lights the carge plane
would not detect the approacing palne until it very close. This method was
tested/used during WWII on aircraft searching for Uboats and had a greater
success than most people know about.

>And before you try to say that you'll "stealth" the ship with regards
>to IR, better consider that this is *very* hard to do. It'll take
>*huge* amounts of power to cool just the side facing the other ship
>down to a "safe" temperature, and it'll require dumping so much extra
>heat from the other side that you'll stand out like a beacon to anyone
>looking from that side. The more narrowly you restrict your emissions,
>the more power it takes, and the more visible you are from the angle
>you still emit. 
>

Yes this is true but with "handwaving" mode engaged the stealth possiblity
is very available. Ie a "Super Handwaving" mode for IR stealth, using
advanced forms the "Handwaving" method of heat generation/radiation
management.

>snip<
- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1138
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Friday, April 4 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1139



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Putting FIGHT back into Figher (was Submarine Fighters)
Re: AWACS Starships and Zhodani
Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)
Re: AWACS Starship 
How to use fighters
Re: Fighters vs Capital Ships
Re: Fighter Design
On fighters...
Re:Fighters vs Capital Ships
Re: Color of the sky...
Re: Fighters
Not Submarine Fighters, more Missile Boats
Re: Grav Cities in Gas Giants
Not Fighters, but maybe Missile Boats
Re: matching vectors (new questions)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 23:53:57 +0000
From: Garry Ward <Garry.E.Ward@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Putting FIGHT back into Figher (was Submarine Fighters)

At 05:44 PM 4/3/97 +0000, you wrote:
> <snip>
>2) Develop ship to ship missiles that a fighter can carry that will 
>serious hurt a capital ship.  The reason I lean towards missiles 
>instead of strafing with lasers is that lasers are for 
>self-protection and smaller targets (other fighters, ground strafing, 
>etc.)
>
>JD
>Twolf
>

Like I said earlier: take an SDB, dump the staterooms, galley, and anything
else not related to the fight at hand, and call that your 'space figther'.
You don't need to develop a new missle type; you design a transport
mechanism to handle the ones you got. This transport mechanism exists: the
System Defense Boat.

Garry

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 17:34:39 +0000
From: "Doctor Vince" <drvince@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: AWACS Starships and Zhodani

> Referring to the "Lensman" series makes me wonder about the role (if any)
> of telepaths and clairvoyants in the Zhodani fleet.  Although it probably
> wouldn't happen, because the distances between vessels is so great, it's
> very easy to envision a Zhodani admiral, snapping out orders to a crowd of
> attentive telepaths, who then relay those orders to telepaths aboard other
> vessels.  Meanwhile, aboard the Imperial warships that Zhodani fleet is
> about to engage, the officers in charge of electronic warfare are audibly
> grinding their teeth down with frustration, fully aware of what those
> dirty brain-raping Zho-ies are up to, but powerless to stop them...

I suppose it depends on what you think the Zho's can do with 
psionics..I mean I find it plausable to have a psi-enhancement 
technology, (IIRC there is some precedent for a psi/technological 
crossover with psi "flicking" and such) and so the Zho comm techs (at 
least in the Guards) are also telepaths. That would give the Zhodani 
Guard units a hell of an advantage with FTL communications (again 
dependent on your presumptions about psi). A Guard squadron could 
jump insystem, kick ass, and be gone before anyone knew about it.

Of course, we all know the Zho's lost the 5th Frontier War (Yaskodray 
only knows how). I'd assume that this is probably due to the fact 
that the Guard are elite (I mean they are all nobles), and there 
aren't too many of them.

The presence of psi-enhancement technology (even at the lower Zhodani 
TL's) actually makes the Zho's really fearsome. I mean as it stands, 
Zho Guards can teleport into a restricted area behind defenses...they 
can pull tactical secrets out of the Imp admiral's head while he 
sleeps, and a telepathic clairvoyant can guide a psionic jump source 
(a la FFS) with pinpoint precision.

And I shudder to think of what a Zho cyberpsi could do on a data 
raid...yuk!

VC
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The passion of lovers is for death...
                                    -Bauhaus
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  Vince Coccia, distinguished legal counsel for 
  His Infernal Majesty, is: drvince@ix.netcom.com
- --------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 17:06:27 -0700 (MST)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)

> A) Im using the ship/fighter-spaceship/Spacefighter anaology.  I think
> this is the most appropriate, but it still has its flaws.  I think its the
> best, unless someone has been in a real space battle and can tell us
> otherwise.

A terrible analogy.  Spaceship/spacefighter maps to modern
nuke-powered_warship/speedboat.

> b) Spacefighters are cool.  So im going to be biased anyways:)
 
Agreed (a little)

> Unless economics are really different in the Imperium as opposed to earth
> today, it will definetly be more cost effective to build a high speed,
> well armed, highly maneuvrable 10t Fighter as  opposed to a Dreadnaught
> with the same capabilities.  Also, lets not forget that worlds just

One, a fighter isn't any faster in space, period.  Two, it will
never have the same capabilites.  This keep coming up, *sigh*.

> How effective would a fighter be?  I think quite effective.  Militaraly a
> 10t fighter is more expendable then a 100,000t Battleship.  Also 10t
> fighters would be easier to replace.

Tell that to the pilots.  Look at what kind of losses the US
Airforce could sustain (politically) in a conflict.  The Imperium
should be closer to that mosdel in some ways.  The notion of highly
trained people being expendible doesn't wash, IMO.  (and that
doesn't even take morale into account)

> Some people have argued that they couldnt carry the firepower to effect a
> Battleship.  I disagree.  Stick a fusion bomb or Fission torpedo on these
> babies (the equavilent to a Torpedo) and they could wreck havoc on any
> heavily armoured vessel.

True enough.  But then why bother bringing the fighter?  Just shoot
the smaller, harder to hit missile.
 
Missiles can (and should be able to) be built to wreak a big ship.
They would typically, IMO, be as big as the fighter you suggest, and
would kill by slamming into the target (warhead being superflous at
a few hundred kms per second).  They might even cost as much as the
fighter, but they would have a (non-expendible) crew member.\

> have the Point Defense (AA) to handle such an onslaught.  No one could
> conceivably argue (effectively) that a battleship could handle 100 or a
> thousand fusion torpedos/missles.
 
See above.  BTW, a Tigress has what, 300 laser turrets... based on
calculations done (back of the envelope) on the beta list, once you
get really close, a given laser could hit almost as many targets as
it's ROF, so hundreds of missiles or fighters hit per laser
(assuming they are within a few degrees bearing of each other---but
that's why you have many lasers).

> After the battle, whos won both militaraly and economically?  The guy who
> lost the 100,000t Battleship or the side that lost 100 fighters?  Dont
> forget, lives are generally more expendable then hardware.
 
Only in primitive societies.  It's partially a media thing (you see
the war sitting at home) but at least partially the fact that people
in more advanced (technically) societies tend to have fewer children
so they care more if they lose one (there was an interesting article
in the Wilson Quarterly about this a year or so ago).

> Another poster made the point that even in modern naval warfare planes are
> not very effective against modern Point Defense.  I disagree.  If this
> were so why was the last great Battleship engagement was France, 1940?
> Also, why do modern Navies still rely on Carriers and land based aircraft
> over battleships?  Because no matter how good or how massed your point
> defense is, it wont hit everytime.  Fighters will get threw.  
 
Only if you assume that for some reason a missile needs to be
carried close to the target.  As it stands, the farther a fighter
can shoot at a warship now, the better (for the fighter).  Fly a
fighter to iron-bombing range against a US CBG and it will be
destroyed, without question.
 
The reason for missiles in modern terms is the frightening prospect
of putting a plane near PD.

> >> The Fighter is a Highly effective strike weapon.  They can out maneuver
> >> any large frontline ship, they can zoom in and target important systems

Bzzzzt.  Wrong answer.  You're thinking Star Wars.  The g-rating of
the ships drive is how "fast" it is.  Fighters can't carry big
drives as easily, so they really aren't faster.  Also, in an
absolute sense, they can reach as high a velocity as a BB could.
When your relative velocity to the dust, etc., around you in space
reaches a certain point, your ship will take damage from these
micro-meteorites.  BBs carry orders of magnitude more armor.  The
more armor, the faster you can go.

g-rating is _acceleration_, not velocity.

> I disagree, your thinking in terms of 25th century offense vs 20th century
     ense.  If a fighter can fly as fast as the "speed of light" (which it
> cant) it is only logical to assume it would have the guidance, tracking
> and maneuverability to cope with that speed, and the enemy (all things
> being equal) would have the defense to match it. 
 
If the fighter (or anything) gets too much above 1% of c, it'll get
shreaded by dust motes.

> Why do you say that?  What are you comparing it to? Have you flown in a
> battleship?  All you can logically compare it to is a naval battle.  In a
> naval battle the number of attacking craft are usually in the hundreds, if
> there land based attacker, there in the thousands.  I can tell you now,
> that the planes will come back with a lot less damage then the completely
> destroyed capital ship.  The aircraft will fight again, but the ship will
> not.

Not true at all.  A hundred Chinese aircraft could try and take on a
US Carrier Battle Group.  They'd die, all of 'em (except the ones
that turn tail).  Even if they all carry a couple tac-nukes, they'd
likely not score a hit.  How many F-14s on CAP for a CBG?
20-something?  That's half to all of the attackers dead just from
missile fire.  Any that live deal with the screen, then missiles
haver to also survive the screen.  Not gonna happen.
 
> The Mediterranian fleet was 60% destroyed, and ever ship was damaged.  The
> germans captured crete and had insignificant losses, mostly hardware, as
> they were able to recover pilots.

Aircraft Fighters are (again) not even analogus to space fighters
except that they are small.

Compare:

Aircraft		Space_fighter
- ----------		--------------
Cheap (kinda)		Cheap (kinda)
Faster than ships	Not faster than ships
can sink a ship		Can kill a small ship
ship-like sensors	carries much less capable sensors


The critical point is that they're no faster.  The faster nature of
aircraft allowed carriers to have a longer reach than BBs.  This
isn't true in space, period.  They project force, but no better than
any other asset in the fleet.

> So who won the battle both economically and militaraly?  The guy with the
> air power.  Once again, im making an analogy between ships and space
> vessels.

Bad analogy.
 
> So, with all these frozen watchs and redundent systems, you still think
> that fighters are not as econimical as Battleships?  Using ww2 squadron
> sizes, i would say 1 carrier with 250 planes could take out that
> battleship.  The planes would live to fight another day, the battleship
> is permeantly lost.
 
A traveller BatRon has like 2400 fighters, BTW.  They still can't
kill a BB.
 
> I disagree, show me an historical example.  Name one naval battle where a
> battleship with out aircover went into battle with a carrier and won? Show

You assume that a space BB is different than the fighters, it isn't.
The only problem it has is that it is a bigger target.

> me these high morale marines of yours?  From ww2 to modern times, a
> battleship would be going on a suicide mission against the carrier.  And
> your telling me the Battleship would have higher morale knowing they had
> been sentenced to death.  Not likely.

Doesn't map, sorry.  

> > Add to this the fact that each fighter has Canons and, maybe even bombs
> > which it can hit the vessel with.  Remember, there are no shields, so =
> >each
> > bullet/laser/bomb does as much damage as if they came from an equally
> > large vessel.  Multiply this power by 50 times, or a hundred times (1 =
> >for
> > each fighter) and you have an effective, nigh, invincible weapon.  The
> > only defense is, you guessed it, fighters.

Nope.  a 50 cal bounces off a meter thick slab of armor.  Empty you
magazine at a single point on the hull (bloody hard to do at 10 of
thousands of kms vs. a spinning target) and they have still all
bounced off.  What was your point again?

> Not really, since most of these weapons will be designed for larger ship
> targeting.  I cant remember the last time a saw a spinal mounted Meson
> canon open fire and hit a fighter.  Can you?

It could, why not?  the apparent size compared to a BB at much
longer range wouldn't be much different at all.  But why bother
since you shoot _one_ fighter with the spinal mount.  Use the
several hundred laser turrets all traveller BBs have.  You could
also use some of the 21,500 ready missiles a Tigress has to nail
fighters (15,500 on a FFS-like version).
 
> This is an incorrect assumption.  Top speed is whatever a space craft has
> been built to go upto.  Im sure light speed isnt one of them (mayb absurd
> speed:).  Each tech level logically would have an upper limit of the
> absolute fastest speed it can build engines to.
 
You are totally wrong here.  I assume you understand that we're
dealing with an effectively frictionless environment.  That means
that you needn't run the drives to keep moving.  If you shut off the
drive, you drift forever at your velocity when the drive died.
There is *NO* speed limit save lightspeed (except what you armor
allows vs. dust particles (the BB is faster in this case)). 
 
I think this assumption you make above, which is completely wrong,
is at the bottom of all the other broken assumptions that allow you
to map atmospheric craft to spacecraft.

- -Merrick

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 19:11:27 -0500
From: Daniel Poulin <pould@netcom.ca>
Subject: Re: AWACS Starship 

At 17:07 03/04/97 -0700, Bruce Johnson wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, James Garriss wrote:
>
>> This begs an interesting question.  Is there a Traveller equivalent to an
>> AWACS?  It would have to be a ship with a massive array of active sensors.
>> It would also have a suite full of controllers who are controlling the
>> movements of all the ships in the region.  It would have active, tight-beam
>> communication with all other ships in the region.  The tactical advantage
>> of such a ship would be huge.
>
>I don't know how useful it would be, but I know I wouldn't want to be
>anywhere near that sitting duck errr AWACS ship when it lights up it's
>active sensors....then _everything_ will see it, unless you're also
>positing that (like our AWACS aircraft) they also have significant jamming
>capability.
>
>Stealthy ships with huge passive arrays, now those are a horse of a
>different color...I think we discussed THOSE to death a few months ago;-)
>
>However, this DOES bring back smaller craft as fighters...if your AWAC's
>are busy jamming all of their sensors, and they yours, smaller ships might
>get in under the sensor 'snow' and get a hit on those cap ships.
> 
>
What about mounting advanced sensors on missilles?  They would be difficult
to hit and
yet provide all the jamming and "sensing" required?

Daniel Poulin
pould@netcom.ca

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 17:26:28 -0700 (MST)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: How to use fighters

Fighters do have a couple advantages.

Agility
Small presented area

To use these to best advantage, fighters would stay as far away from
the target as possible within whatever their effective range is.
Effective range would be their direct fire weapons (lasers) range and
their missiles (determined by the g-rating of the missiles, and
their vector on launch).

If they get too close, evasion makes no difference at all, they get
hit (approaching once per shot fired).  Evasion is the only factor
in space combat that incurs range penalties.  This is why fighters
have uses (aside from close air support in atmosphere).

There will be ranges where the large ships can be easily hit by the
fighter's lasers, but the fighters are harder to hit---this is where
they live (if they get to chose) in combat.  They can launch
missiles from there as well, but the missiles have to deal with the
PD fire, etc.  Enough missiles from different angles could satureate
the PD, but ships could do this as well.  The limitless delta v of a
t-plate fighter makes carrying missiles a decent idea.  Just don't
put your fighter in range of the BB if you care to go home.

So fighters move towards the enemy, then launch missiles (better
than the fleet sending the coasting from far away).  They can then
brake and stay ahead of the enemy, firing lasers either at enemy
missiles, or to pick away at surface features on the enemy hull that
aren't armored.

- -Merrick

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 00:38:16 +0000
From: Garry Ward <Garry.E.Ward@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Fighters vs Capital Ships

At 02:54 PM 4/4/97 +0000, you wrote:
>
>(It's Friday so I can spare a little time to throw some fuel on the fire...)
>
> <snip>
>
>Now, this sort of situation wouldn't last long - maybe a century until all
>the old ships get destroyed and ship yards have had time to turn out
>ships that are bristling with a mixture of small, medium and large weapons.
>In that century though, the Sylean Federation becomes the Third Imperium.
>
>That's why fighters will beat big ships IN YEAR 0. General comparisons
>of capital ships vs fighters are too vague to be meaningful.
>
>Comments?
>
>Ethan
>-- 
>ehenry@magma.ca                                  http://www.magma.ca/~ehenry
>
Correct! The capital ships will change, forcing the 'fighter' to new
configurations, changing the capital ship .... etc. In M:0, instead of the
fighters presented, the most likely initial figthers were existing hulls
restructured; like the standard scout, only drop off the jump drive, convert
the cargo hold into a missle magazine, and turn every other cubic centimeter
not involved with flight, power or weapons into armor.  

Garry

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 19:48:41 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: Fighter Design

Lewis Roberts made the following eminently sensible suggestion:

[snip]
>
>I say we make the next THUDD about designing fighters.  They are pretty
>intersting to build.  We would have to agree on a mission
>specification.  Heavy fighter, light fighter, long range patrol craft
>(week duration), short range patrol craft, sensor/picket fighter,
>ground attack, but once you have one built, it is easy enough to
>modifiy it to another mission.


	I'm game...

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 19:48:35 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: On fighters...

	I think that I'm about ready to weigh in on the side of the
nay-sayers on the fighter debate.  I think the arguments about long-range
detection, direct-fire energy weapon point defense, peashooter armament,
heavy armour on the capital ships and absence of a speed advantage for the
fighters means that Lucas-esque small fighters would be stunning wastes of
men and materiel.

	I think that what might be worth investigating is more of a gunboat
concept; stuff a big PA gun, a laser or two, and a sandcaster into the
smallest possible hull (say 200Td or so); this gives it a long-range weapon
with punch enough to give a hard target a hard time, and some defensive
capability.  It minimizes the amount you have to spend on hull, systems,
and crew per big gun.  The idea is to spend the most money possible on
*effective* offensive weaponry and M-drive performance, and sacrifice size,
accomodations, and endurance in order to do so.

	This would be the wet-navy equivalent of mounting a 16" naval gun
as a spinal mount on a boat about 75' long.  Wouldn't work in the water
because of waves & such, but you get the idea; cheaper to build a bunch of
small hulls, power plants, etc, so you get more big guns in the water for
the same amount of money.

	You could use smaller yards to build them in, and you could put
more units out faster than if you were building big suckers.  They'd be
attrition units, designed for wolfpack tactics.  Any of you SFB players
recall PF's?

	As far as the statement in the T4 manual that Fusion+ fighters are
what gives the Third Imperium its edge, let's recall that this would
probably be against opponents some TL's lower.  Fighters might not be
effective against capital ships, but might be quite effective at commerce
interdiction, generally raising hell, infantry support, terrorizing
civilians, and beating up on lower-TL opponents. They might prove very good
at extending sensor baselines too.  And let's not forget that this is
Milieu 0; we don't even have rules for building ships over 5,000 Td yet.
So the 100,000 Td dreadnaughts won't be a problem right away...

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 19:50:17 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re:Fighters vs Capital Ships

Ethan Henry wrote:
[snippage]
>
>Imagine, you're a Vilani officer aboard the ZS Eneri VIII battleship.
>It's a 10,000Td egg-shape, with Jump-2, maybe 3Gs of acceleration (all that
>you can compensate) and a whopping big meson gun, the biggest you can hold.
>(The Vilani like spheres for ship hulls, but a sphere is the worst thing
>in the world to put a spinal mount in. Eggs are a nice comprimise for those
>old-fashioned Vilani). What other weapons are there? Some missles maybe.
>Maybe a few point defence weapons, anti-missle lasers, but not much other
>than the spinal mount. There's no use for anything else - it isn't able
>to damage the enemy. Military doctrines is to close into spinal mount
>range on the enemy as fast as possible then hit them before they hit you.
>(Hopefully you have a longer range and more armor). That's it.
>
[the fighters attack]
>Now, this sort of situation wouldn't last long - maybe a century until all
>the old ships get destroyed and ship yards have had time to turn out
>ships that are bristling with a mixture of small, medium and large weapons.
>In that century though, the Sylean Federation becomes the Third Imperium.
>
>That's why fighters will beat big ships IN YEAR 0. General comparisons
>of capital ships vs fighters are too vague to be meaningful.

	I don't quite buy this one, Ethan... if my neighbours are building
ships with inadequate point defenses, all I'm going to start doing is
building my ships with many, many missile racks apiece, and nuke my
opponents to bits before they get into spinal mount range with massive
missile waves.

	If there are going to be drones or missiles out there, there are
going to be point defenses... and if there are going to be big spinal
mounts out there, they're going to have very heavy point defenses, to keep
their gigacredit investment from being fried by a nuke missle that cost a
few megacredits, tops.  Thus, the fighters get fried when they try and play
with the big boys.

	The more I think about it, the more I think that any admiral
sending fighters in against capital ships would be out of his mind.
Fighters against merchants, fighters against interface fighters, fighters
against ground targets, yes, but not against capital ships...  Now a swarm
of the gunboats I proposed a few posts back against capital ships, yes, but
not fighters...

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 17:51:15 -0800
From: "David P. Summers" <dsummers@mail.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Color of the sky...

Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:40:19 -0800 (PST), Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>

>I've got my players going to Bruyere in Deneb sector. The atmosphere is
>very thin, tained, with my handy dandy World Builder's Handbook determining
>that the taint consists primarily of sulphur compounds. Bruyere orbits a F0
>V primary, so it's a pretty bright white main sequence star. The planet is
>only 40 percent water, so it's likely to be fairly dry, too. And yes, since
>it's the system mainworld, the planet is in the habitable zone.

>Question: what color would the sky be in broad daylight? At sunset? I think
>I've got night solved. <g>

The same as on Earth (assuming the air itself isn't colored, in an otherwise
breathable atmosphere sulfure will generally not formed colored compounds).
However, a thiner atmosphere will mean the blue is darker (tender more
toward the background black of space) and the red will be less intense
(less scattering as the light comes in).

The color of Earth's sky depends on scattering and not on chemical adsorption.

[Disclaimer: If NASA had an opinion they wouldn't have ME give it.]
summers@alum.mit.edu

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 17:57:56 -0800
From: "David P. Summers" <dsummers@mail.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Fighters

Fri, 04 Apr 1997 12:35:52 -0500,  James Garriss <jpg@langley.mitre.org>
>The USN can effectively use aircraft to destroy enemy fleets.
>Bombs, missiles, and torpedos can sink battleships, carriers, cruisers, and
>anything else (except perhaps subs, but that's a different question).


How relevant is this to Traveller?  Fighters travel by a diffeent
mode (flight) that gives them and order of magnitude difference in
speed and maneuverability. This isn't true in Traveller.  I would
say that a better analogy would be to compare the heavy battleships
and lighter patrol craft of WWI (before naval aviation became
as important).  For reasons similar to Traveller, combat was
staged by larger ships "sluging it out".  Not sending in smaller
craft to attack.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 97 16:56:09 -0600
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Not Submarine Fighters, more Missile Boats

On 04/04/97 at 01:14 AM,  Garry Ward <Garry.E.Ward@worldnet.att.net> said:

> As long as the same type of manuver drive is available to both the
> fighter and the capital ship, I can not see a significant advantage.
> Unless the fighter weights in at the same size as an SDB. Strip an SDB of
> it's long term crew accomodations, replace them with added armor, fuel
> and munitions, you are beginning to get a picture of what I see a space
> 'fighter' as being. X-wings, Vipers and such are just not viable. 

Yep, that's exactly my thinking too.  I'd go a little smaller than the
400sdt SDB, though, down into the 100sdt range.  Send out a squardron with
a few missiles aboard to fire in salvo at long range, then they retire to
their tenders for recovery and resupply.

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 22:35:55 -0500 (EST)
From: ToddMoody@aol.com
Subject: Re: Grav Cities in Gas Giants

From: fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin W. Cain)


Has anyone else on TML read Mr. Anthony's _Bio_of_a_Space_Tyrant_ series?
In this series, mankind has *numerous* grav cities floating in the
atmospheres of the gas giants of the solar system.  I find it strange that
Traveller has postulated numerous grav cities throughout the high-tech
Imperium, but not one of them floating in the upper atmosphere of a gas
giant.  Any ideas how come???<<<<


I read it about 10 years ago.  Can't remember much of it now.  The only thing
I can think of is toxicity.  The only advantage I see is a virtually
inexaustible source of hydrogen for fusion power plants.  Seems like a high
orbit might be more preferable.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 97 16:35:07 -0600
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Not Fighters, but maybe Missile Boats

On 04/03/97 at 03:48 PM,  Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com> said:

> Your argument also implies that small fighters carry weapons that will
> cripple a large ship; cruise missile, torpedo, 1000 pound bomb, whatever.
> The Traveller universe offers NO such weapon. The missiles are more like
> the AIM-9 sidewinder. Kills a fighter, cripples a 30 foot fishing boat,
> and ignored by the USS New Jersey.  

Like Bruce, I've tried to stay out of a Space Fighters argument, but I
*just* can't.  ;-> For all the reasons Bruce, Bob and others have
presented, *fighter* craft are not appropriate for Traveller style space
combat.  This doesn't mean we can't have some smaller craft though...

As I see it small warcraft in Traveller are much closer to torpedo boats
than fighter planes, if you want an analogy.  They are a little faster
(sometimes), more agile (usually), and without their torpedos little more
than speedboats with machine guns.  Even with their torpedos, torpedo
boats, weren't especially effective in attacks on capital ships, unless
they had the advantage of total surprise from darkness or cover.

Now, I think Traveller can give you the torpedos (big missiles that can
damage capital ships), but not the cover.  <G>

How about something like the following:

Parker Class Missile Boat - something like 80 to 100 sdt..crew of 3 to 5. 
Designed to be as fast (best acceleration you can give them) and
maneuverable as possible, have fair sized sensor suites, have a *little*
armor (enough to give them some protection from civilian lasers), armed
with missiles that can damage a capital ship and a couple of low power
lasers for soft targets.  In squadrons, they would launch swarms of
missiles toward a capital ship from *very* *long* range and then run like
hell (still taking loses from covering fire from *destroyers*..that's why
they were originally called torpedo boat destroyers.  <g>), and although
most of their missiles would be picked off by point defences they *might*
get a lucky hit and do some damage to a capital ship.  Their main use in
fleet action would be to occupy the escorts for a little while, *maybe*
drawing them off so more capable ships can get their missile swarms past
the escorts and into the capital ships.  We might equip them with
*several* sandcasters and allow them to perform some limited
screening and cover operations as well.

The Missile Boat's missions would include:  1.  System patrol; 2. a little
Intellegence gathering and Picket duty; 3.  Commerce
escort/raider duty; and 4. squadron sized missile attacks (probably not too
effective) on capital ships.  IAC, a Missile Boat trying to close with any
*warship* bigger than themselves would be suicide.

These would be short duration/non-jump boats based working out of a tender,
or a base.  I'd expect these boats to work in groups, seldom alone.

Does anyone want to write up the details? ;->


Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 22:35:54 -0500 (EST)
From: ToddMoody@aol.com
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

MrkGrismer@aol.com said on Thu, 3 Apr 1997 10:28:04 -0500 (EST):

It may have less inertia to move, but a 6G ship is a 6G ship regardless o=
f
it's mass. A 5 million ton ship rated at 6Gs can change its vector every =
bit
as quickly as a 5 ton ship rated at 6Gs. [Of course, it requires immense
amounts of thrust, and would probably turn night into day on any nearby
planets].<<<

This is a fallacy.  There is such a thing as G onset rate and smaller cra=
ft
have a very large advantage here, at least in an atmosphere.  Mass and
Inertia will play a big part here.  The 6Gs refers simply to forward
acceleration here.  6Gs could mean that the craft has the power and contr=
ol
authority to pull hard enough to put 6Gs on the structure and everything =
in
it, and does not speak to the onset rate of those Gs.  G onset rate might=
 be
another way to differentiate more manueverable craft (Agility in High Gua=
rd).
=20

It certainly would not be like the bridge of the Enterprise.  Everyone wo=
uld
have to be strapped down and preferably wearing a G suit.  Many people wi=
ll
pass out at 6 Gs if not trained.  At 9 Gs most people will pass out.  Abo=
ve
this there are few even well trained that can maintain consiousness.  Per=
haps
a new anti-gravity device could be developed to counter the G force in ma=
nned
parts of the ship.  It would require a device to monitor current Gs, onse=
t
rate and be able to rapidly change to match.  Problem also comes in when =
you
consider which directions can the G=92s be pulled in.  There are no aircr=
aft
that can pull many G=92s in the negative (i.e. pushing over),and then the=
re is
accounting for side loads.  This would be severly limiting to large
spacecraft operating in a 3D war environment.=20

G-ing your lips off should be reserved to fighters will small numbers of =
crew
wearing appropriate equipment and strapped in.

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1139
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Saturday, April 5 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1140



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Known Bright Star List for the Alpha Leonis/Crucis Sector
Re: Not Fighters, but maybe Missile Boats
Re: Boarding Action
Re: Fighters v Battleships
Re: Fighters vs Capital Ships
British Submarines in WW2
Re: Fighters
The Fighter question
Various TL problems
Ship Contructors Gazzette No 1 Final Draft

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 22:53:24 -0500
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Known Bright Star List for the Alpha Leonis/Crucis Sector

Those of us who are working on bringing the Alpha Leonis/Crucis
Sector up to date both in terms of the New Era and astronomically
speaking know what this is about.  

   For the rest of you, I've been working with Henbest and Couper's "The
Guide to the Galaxy" and some other sources in an effort to identify
familar and not so familiar stars that should be located in the Alpha
Leonis/Alpha Crucis Sector and determine where they should be located on
a sector map.  Below is the result of my work: 

0125  Beta Pictoris              A5 V

0129  Beta Leonis (Denebola)     A3 V

0719  Alpha Eridani (Achernar)   B5 IV
 
0937  Alpha Leonis (Regulus)     B7 V

1012  Delta Virginis (Auva)      M3 III

1232  Alpha Hydrae (Alphard)     K3 III

1511  Beta Carinae (Miaplacidus) A2 IV

1640  Gamma Leonis (Algieba)     K1 III & G7 III

1907  Gamma Crucis (Gacrux)      M3 III

2027  Delta Doradus              A7 V

2832  Alpha Columbae (Phaet)     B7 V

2834  Beta Columbae (Wezn)       K2III

Any comments, suggestions, corrections, additions, or any other input
regarding this list should be sent to hdhale@siscom.net

Regards,

Harold

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 22:23:20 -0700 (MST)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Not Fighters, but maybe Missile Boats

 
> Now, I think Traveller can give you the torpedos (big missiles that can
> damage capital ships), but not the cover.  <G>
 
Ah, the KKM returns, excellent.

 :-)

Actually, even if their use isn't always cost effective, since they
*might* be on the enemy's load out list, you have no choice but to
build a defense against them.  But I digress.

I used to envision missile bays from HG as big missiles (some guys
use lots of small missiles, some use big fat ones).  A 5-10 ton
unmanned "fighter" with t-plates would be a nasty critter indeed.
You give it as big a g-rating as you can shove into it---perhaps
t-plates as high as possible, then HEPlaR or someting as a booster
for a few g-turns worth.  They might not hit, but if they do...

The knowlege that every enemy fleet has a few of these puppies
warmed up in the launch tubes is enough to make any admiral set up
some good screening around his major units.

I really prefer variability in missile systems, so this is pretty
neat to me.

Regarding fighters and carried missiles, though, I do think there is
reason to use the endless delta v of a missile carrier to set up
missiles on a flight path into the enemy (where they then use their
reaction drives to intercept).  Missile boats probably make more
sense since they minimize crew requirements.  Smaller units
(fighters) might be used in an offensive screening role---since you
can spread out your missiles over a wide patrol area.

- -Merrick

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 23:15:13 -0800
From: rdhough@orca.bc.ca (Richard Hough)
Subject: Re: Boarding Action

>It also makes the prospects of piracy a bit dicey. Where would the pirate
>ship ambush its prey? Velocity would only be slowed down nearby destination
>planets, and most of those would be patrolled by the local navy (and possibly
>Imperial). Jump point might not be a good spot since ships can jump in
>anywhere outside 100 diameters, and can jump in with any velocity and
>bearing.

In my campaign ships maintain their velocity with respect to the background
stars when they jump. The relative motion between stars is on the order of
tens of km/sec, as I recall. Because of this, when a ship comes out of jump
it may have a large velocity difference between it and its destination. To
offset this, ships in my campaign jump to and from points on the 100
diameter limit where the relative motions counteract each other. For
example, if two systems are moving away from each other the ship will jump
from the trailing point of the origin system and arrive at the leading
point in the destination system. This can save hours of travel and tons of
fuel with HEPlaR drives. Therefore for every jump there is exactly one
departure and one arrival point which is optimal, the "jump point". Pirates
can calculate these points as easily as merchants and wait there for
incoming victims. Merchants in my campaign can decide whether to use the
predictable efficient jump point or a safer but inefficient random jump
point depending on their fears of pirate attack.

- --
Richard Hough
rdhough@orca.bc.ca

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 19:35:13 +1200 (NZST)
From: Richard Fields <rfields@actrix.gen.nz>
Subject: Re: Fighters v Battleships

I perceive this line of thought as one where drag and cost are the 
important. Sadly tradition of Knights of the Air dosen't survive without 
signifficant technology to support it.
IMHO the comparison used is aircraft that _fly_ through air verses surface 
ships that _sail on_ water verses submarines that _sail through_ water.
As we are opperating in a vaccume where relative drag makes the Drednought
the manouverable (Mdrive) equal of the F-20, the value of smaller craft 
is in their cost effeciency. To promote fighters as battle winners in 
thier own right should we not look to physists discover a method of 
breaking the 6g prohibition? Perhaps via microjump and duel mini 
j-drives, or discovery of j-plus-space?
Then again there might be a reason for dense atmospheric capable small craft 
capable of flying in Goo (air) to reach where space bourne weapons 
platformes can't effectively reach.

I appriciate some of this isn't necessarily cannon, and would appriciate 
comment.

Richard Fields
Auditioning for the nth Heretic "What if ..."

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 04:17:06 -0500
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: Fighters vs Capital Ships

From: Ethan Henry <ehenry@mag1.magmacom.com>
Who writes:
>>>
snip
Why, in T4, is the fighter said to give the new Third Imperium an
advantage over other interstellar empires?

Historically, in almost all fields of battle, the upper hand has gone to
the side that has redefined how the battle is fought.=20

>Good historical stuff snipped

How would the introduction of space fighters in the sub-100Td range have
changed the field of battle in Year 0?
Well, what would have been there before? Big capital ships. With BIG
guns.

>Some great arguments snipped

Enter the Sylean Empire and Fusion+. Suddenly you can build small, fast,
high-endurance space fighters.
So, what changes?
Imagine, you're a Vilani officer aboard the ZS Eneri VIII battleship.
It's a 10,000Td egg-shape, with Jump-2, maybe 3Gs of acceleration=20
>snip
One day, you engage the enemy (a strange looking vessel without a spinal
mount - easy target!) and before you manage to close in close enough
to loose your meson gun, the enemy ship disgorges a couple hundred ships
that are about 50td each. Huh? What do you shoot them with? You've got a
>snip

That's why fighters will beat big ships IN YEAR 0. General comparisons
of capital ships vs fighters are too vague to be meaningful.

Comments?
<<<


Logical, smart, and it makes sense.  I would tie them in with a combined
force of fighters and TL12 capital ships. So it lets play out the
scenario a little more:

TF 1002 with Admiral Soandso on board, in charge of the traditional
Vilani fleet:=20
4 - 90,000 ton BB=92s=20
6 - 30,000 ton CA=92s
4 - 10,000 ton CL=92s
15 - Escorts in the 3-5000 ton range
20 - Scouts in the 100 - 400 ton range
8 - Supply and Repair ships in reserve

Your mission is to probe the strength of some new up start empire called
Sylena, or some such thing. The fleet jumps in system and starts to
deploy without incident. Big ships towards the center, escorts and
scouts towards the edge, and a few ranging out front. The entire fleet
starts to look like a giant umbrella moving handle first, with scouts at
the curve of the handle. A very traditional approach towards a hostile
system.
=20
Suddenly the scouts start to report small fast moving objects
approaching, and the leading scout goes off line. A few minutes later,
sensors report a large explosion where the scout used to be.

Admiral Soandso does the smart thing, and moves some of the larger
escorts up to support the scouts. Just as the fleet starts to execute
the orders, more and more of the picket scouts start to disappear.=20

Slowly, almost painfully, the fleets eyes and ears are removed. The
fleet is forced to pull in tighter in order to protect the fleet from
these gnats.=20

On the other side the Sylean Fleet controls the time and place of their
attack. Moving in at an angle that provides them the most advantage,
their 2 BB=92s supported by the new fast attack ships, crush most of the
escorting ships. Then, and only then, do they move into the remains of
the Vilani fleet by executing the perfect crossing T maneuver.=20

Weeks later, as the remains of the Vilani fleet return, high command
places full blame on Admiral Soandso, MIA.

Only after they join the Third Imperium do they realize the full extent
of their blunder, and just how lucky they were.

For soon the Zhodani, K=92Kree, Hiver and Vargr will experience the same
results. Only this time the Vilani get to be on the winning side.


Bob

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 10:37:34 +0100
From: Colin Hollands <cmhtml@london.mis.slb.com>
Subject: British Submarines in WW2

The british actually had two types of mini sub durring the war, the first
was essentially a torpedo with seats for 2 frogmen, this was ridden upto
ships, the explosive nose cone was detached from the torpedo and attached
via cable to the ship with a timer fuse (i believe this was called a
chariot), the second type actually was a mini sub with a crew of 4, these
were used to attack a pocket battleship in Norway (Graf Spee i think) which
was badly damaged and then scuttled by her Captain the explosives on these
were known as saddle charges as they were strapped to the sides of the sub,
they were released by turning a wheel which unscrewed the charge from the
side dropping the charge and allowing sea water to enter the charge making
it unstable and explode (highly unreliable timer) if i remember correctly 6
of these subs were towed by conventional subs to a position off the coast
of norway and then released to do their job, 1 or 2 broke their towing
cables on the way over and were lost, 1 started the attack and was never
heard of again (presumed fault and sank) another lost power and had to sit
out the attack on the bottom, as far as i remember 2 craft laid there
charges but only one craft got away intact and a further 2 crews safely.

The entire attack was counted as a success but only marginally.



Colin Hollands

"Reality is for when you have nothing more interesting to do, or you've run
out of money."

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 05:13:32 -0500
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: Fighters

From: James Garriss <jpg@langley.mitre.org>
Who wrote:
>>
At 03:48 PM 4/3/97 -0500, Bob wrote:
>The
>aircraft simply offers the Navy the ability to extend that zone. But
>fighters/bombers do not, nor could they, attack an enemy fleet. Not
>today.=20
>>
Bzzzt.  Ever heard of Billy Mitchell?  No?  Go find a library and read
up
on him.  The USN can effectively use aircraft to destroy enemy fleets.
Bombs, missiles, and torpedos can sink battleships, carriers, cruisers,
and
anything else (except perhaps subs, but that's a different question).
<<

Sure, I know who Billy is, but that was a long time ago :)=20
My point was that Missiles are now the attack weapon of choice.  Today=92=
s
Navy will not use bombs or torpedoes to attack an enemy fleet, UNLESS it
has been completely neutralized.=20

My point stands, but need to be a little more clear: fighters/bombers do
not, nor could they, attack an enemy fleet DIRECTLY. They can and will
use OTH missiles.

>>
>Subs, bombers and ships all launch these missiles from
>beyond sensor range of the enemy fleet and the missiles are your
>invincible force.=20

True, but fighters can do that too.
<<
Only the multi purpose fighters (F-18), my old F-14 can not carry
anything except bombs and ATA missiles, and no pilot will go near an
enemy fleet with just bombs. not unles he wants to swim home :)

>>
>Look at what we used
>to teach Iraq a lesson; no aircraft, just Cruisers, Destroyers and Subs
>launching cruise missiles from beyond his range. Aircraft are too
>fragile to send to downtown Baghdad!=20

I'm laughing.  Even CNN knew more than you do.
<<
Err, sorry. Not during the war, only the last few times we attacked him.
However, during the war we DID NOT sent any aircraft over Baghdad until
the air defense system was taken down. And that includes the F-117.  We
took it down with some very neat tricks prior to the war starting.

I stand by what I stated.

>>
>Your argument also implies that small fighters carry weapons that will
>cripple a large ship; cruise missile, torpedo, 1000 pound bomb,
>whatever. The Traveller universe offers NO such weapon.=20

Well, here you have hit upon the main point and with good accuracy.  If
it's not in the game, then it's not in the game.  This would be an
example
of Real Life not scaling up to Traveller Life.

I suppose we could argue about whether or not it *should* be that way,
but
I'd rather not.  Nobody's asked me to design the next version of the
game.
:-)
<<

Thanks for the point, but seriously, I do know a lot about combined arms
and air power. I had to, it was my job for 9 years.=20

And I think that somebody here should be the next person to design the
game, because if we don't, who will? Of course I would not want the job,
look at all the flames!  :)


Bob

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 12:27:36 +0100
From: Colin Hollands <cmhtml@london.mis.slb.com>
Subject: The Fighter question

Like several people, i have been restraining comment, on the fighter issue

the way i see fighters being used in fleet situations is to harras/annoy
and even take out the smaller destroyer type ships and supply ships
allowing your capital ships free passage to attack his capital ships rather
than having to wade through everything else to get at them, which is much
the way navy battles have gone throughout history, you don't attack a
pocket battleship with a MTB unless you are suicidal, but you can attack
his supply convoy or destroyer escorts with one, denying him his resupply
resources.

as for the comparisons of Aircraft Fighters/Space Fighters to Navy Capital
Ships/Space Capital ships, it is an invalid argument.

Because we are earth bound and so used to surface,submerged and air combat
we forget that they are three entirely seperate mediums.

Subs essentially travel totaly submersed in a Liquid,
Aircraft travel through a gas,
Ships that are on the boarders of the two mediums half in liqued and half
in gas, getting more drag from the the liquid,

in space you are all in the same medium, so when comparing space craft to
navy craft please use vessels using the same medium i.e surface craft or
you have an invalid comparison. 

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 13:30:41 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Various TL problems

Dedly@aol.com writes:
>It is taken for granted that Earth's development is the standard by which
>civilizations on other worlds advanced technologically. This is fine although
> IMO a not wholly accurate way at looking at TL advancement. 

It is neither fine, nor correct. A TL denotes a certain technological
accomplishment. From the start the books used examples from Earth's history
as _examples_ of various TLs. Thus TL 4 corresponds, more or less, to what
could be found on Earth between 1860 and 1900. But only more or less. If
you forget that you are apt to get into terrible trouble. For example, IIRC
TL 4 is singleshot weapons, even though there were plenty of magazine
weapons made between 1860 and 1900. And obviously Earth is not TL 9 in
space technology yet, even though TL 9 is supposed to correspone to ca.
1990 to 2000 (OTOH it is my belief that Earth today is considerably above
TL 9 in computer technology).

And then, of course, there are lots of things that _could_ have been done
at a certain time on Earth, but wasn't done because the knowledge was
missing. But in the Traveller universe the knowledge IS there. Not, perhaps,
just after the Long Night, but in 1100 every non-interdicted low- and
medium-tech world in the Imperium has access to full TL 15 knowledge. So
drawing parallels between what technology was used on Earth during a
particular historical period and what can be done on a planet with the
"corresponding" TL is difficult and at best a guideline. At worst it leads
to silly mistakes.

>The point of my post is this: I'd like to see a more detailed version of TL
>advancement across the spectrum as it appeared in the CT big black book. I've
>had to make my own modifications to it based on the last 20 years of tech and
>the speculations about the future it has inspired. Some areas are defined
>pretty well (military hardware & jump drives) but there's no central
>repository of this overrall info that I can find. I haven't seen the CSC so I
>don't know if what I'm looking for is addressed there. The T4 book covers
>this in little blurbs but only for society at TL11. 

Try to get hold of the Megatraveller book _Referee's Companion_. It has a
big chart with details of a dozen different technological fields set out
level by level.

Scott Ellsworth writes:
>Someone should come up with a canonical answer, though, on what tech level
>the Vilani and the ROM made it to.  Several points inside EA refer to TL 13
>equipment from the Vilani, which I had thought they did not make it to.  I
>am, of course, willing to be shown otherwise.

The canonical answer is that the RoM (which included the Vilani at the time)
made it to TL 12 (Vland slipped to 9 during the Long Night, but began
climbing again when contacted by the Sylean Confederation in (I think) -450).

The big problem (apart from writers who apparently don't give a damn about
maintaining consistency) is that there is no definition of just what it
means that a world or a culture has a particular TL. My own (personal)
definition is that a world is TL X when 90% or more of it's inhabitants
routinely use TL X implements and that an interstellar culture is TL X
when one or more of it's major worlds are TL X.

I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that the knowledge of the early
Imperium is apparently TL 14 or thereabouts. Reluctantly, because it opens
up a whole truckload of worm cans. Why did the central world of a multi-
sector empire lack the economic strength to advance from TL 12 to 13 in
less than 3 centuries? (The Imperium dosen't reach TL 13 till 300). The
Imperium will almost certainly have a few jump-4 or even jump-5 couriers
(costing a fortune, yes, but can you imagine how useful they would be?).
And why did it take 1000 years or so to advance two TLs in knowledge? (In
1105 there are aspects of the Darrian TL 16 technology that is still not 
understood* (which is strange in itself when Vincennes later turned out to
be mature TL 16 approaching TL 17).

I agree that someone ought to decide the definite answer to the whole
question of technolgy, both knowledge and application, across the
Traveller timeline, and the only one who can do that is Marc Miller,
since there is no way to resolve all the contradictions involved without 
violating several part of the canon.

*And how DID the Darrians manage to lose their TL 16 knowledge when one
 entire university survived the _Maghiz_ intact? Sigh...



      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: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 00:00:57 +1200
From: Andrew Vallance <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
Subject: Ship Contructors Gazzette No 1 Final Draft

Ship Constructors Gazzette, Issue 1, 095-20
   The official newsletter of the ISBA
   (a free service provided to the shipbuilding industry by the ISBA)

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     **Leader article**

The highlight of the ISBA's recent activities was of course, His Serene
Highness, Emperor Cleon's suprise arrival and speach at the ISBA
inaugurial dinner. The ISBA's foundation was greatly honoured by his
attendance. A full text of his speach is reproduced below.

"Welcome. I am pleased to be here....tonight, both personally and
professionally. You all know Zhunette (a gesture to the left) and of her
work with those in need. And you should all know James (a gesture to the
back of the room) who has been so helpful with the promulgation of the
calendar."

"Although these events are never informal, I want to speak with you
tonight not as Emperor, but as a man. And I would hope that my words
would have the same force no matter what. We are in the process of
building a great empire... an interstellar government that will have a
greater span than any that has come before. The future we face
stretches out a thousand years or more, and we will not see an end to
it in our children's children's lifetimes."

"But our future is bright. We have made a major stride forward with the
Fusion Plus system, and I expect in the near future to see similar
strides with Jump Doubler and G Restraints. We stand on the threshold
of a vast new frontier."

"And that frontier presents problems that will inevitably stand in our
way. We can solve each of the physical problems, but what continues to
trouble me is the fact that each of us here is human. Our empire must,
if it is to survive, embrace each intelligence that resides in it, and
if necessary make special provision to bring each intelligence to its
greatest possible level of achievement."

"We have an opportunity now to sweep away the prejudices of the past,
and we must make that a goal as much as our goal of expanding
territoriality."

"David {Baron David Colsworth, Maximus Interstellar Industries}, think of
how much more marketable your products would be if they standardized
controls for the major ergonomic forms in the marketplace."

"And Mallard {Sir Ira Rimmer ,Bureau Of Starships Safety, Health, and
Transit Standards}, if more of your people were locals, wouldn't they
understand better the needs of the locals in terms of safety and health."

"Our empire must be eclectic and cosmopolitan, embracing everyone it
meets, absorbing them under an umbrella that protects and enhances
them. The safety and security that we create will give us and our
children's children the opportunity to live out our lives in peace and
prosperity."

"Remember that both the Ziru Sirka and the Rule of Man collapsed from
their own shortcomings. We must not allow that to happen again."

"I thank you all for being here tonight, and although I must leave, ask
you to embrace this philosophy of empire and make it a reality."

His Serene Highness took the opportunity to introduce Duchess Zhunette
Rosale Cardell, the Emperors offical Liaison to the ISBA.

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     **News**

024-20: Klan Sorien Trust LIC announced today its intention to make a
substantial investment in Valipro Yards LIC. Currently only capable of
constructing ships of up to 500 Td, Valeizro intends to upgrade it's
capacity to enable the construction of ships of up to 2000 Td. Count
Sorien (President of Klan Sorien Trust) was quoted as saying "This is an
investment in the future of the shipbuilding industry. Klan Sorien see's
major long term opportunities in this field. With the current growth in
interstellar trade it is only a matter of time before existing facilities
become inadequate. This partnership with Valeizro is but the first step in
what we hope will be a major focus of our activities" Valeizro stock rose
5 points on the Sylean exchange in response to this announcement.

045-20: The Imperial Navy announced today its intention to procure a class
of ten long range commerce cruisers of a new design. It is intended that
the prototype will be produced at the Sylean Imperial Navy Yards. However
it is expected that, as per standard practice, contracts subsequent examples
will be let to suitably qualified private yards. Whilst the design is
apparently well advanced, the Imperial Navy's Bureau of Contruction and
Repair (BuConRep) is remaining tight lipped as to the final specifications.
All that has currently been released is that the class will be in the
20,000 to 30,000 Td range with a good endurance and heavy armarment.

061-20: BSSHTS investigations continue into the tragic loss of the Tukera
liner "Granier". Lost on her maiden voyage on 321-19, the Granier was a
prototype high capacity liner incorporating several new technologies built
by Vossin Craftwerke AG. Whilst no firm details have been made public
regarding her loss, informed sources indicate that current investigations
are focussing on certain aspects of her revolutionary low volume thruster
plates produced by Zimm Gravitics LIC. Officals at Zimm declined to comment
on such speculations, stating only that any comment would have to await the
offical report of the Board of Investigation.

072-20: The shipbuilding industry mourned the death of Baroness Drena Von
Rankle today. Baroness Von Rankle was a leading naval architect, noted for
her inovative small craft designs. Active until she was striken by illness
in the middle of last year; Baroness Von Rankle is survived by her son Mark
and daughters Erika and Mia. It is expected that Baroness Erika will take
over the reigns of the Von Rankle design bureau.

086-20: X-TEK inc. today announced that it was beginning preliminary design
work on a new line of fighters. Apparently a speculative design, the new
designs are intended to suppliment rather than replace the models currently
in service. While X-TEK has release no offical specifications, company
officals have privately stated that the designs will incorporate several new
technologies and inovative design practices. BuConRep declined to make any
offical comment, but many senior fighter commanders are believed to have
shown interest in the project. Lt Cmdr Gam Luushem, commander of the elite
97th Naval Fighter Squadron stated "X-TEK produce some of the best high
performance small craft in the Imperium, I for one will be very interested
to see what the Commander is producing. If it's anything like X-TEK's
previous designs, I'd be happy to see the men and women in my squadron
behind the controls".

094-20: X-TEK inc. and Maximus Interstellar Defence Industries (MIDI) have
announced an agreement for X-TEK to fit MIDI's new CDVX-22 missile system to
several of its designs, including the AB-1A Assault Bomber and the Missile
SDB currently in the design stages. This new missile system will offer
significantly increased capacities for the X-TEK craft. Many analyists
predict that the CDVX-22 will also form the main armarment of the new line
of fighters currently in the works from X-TEK. It is believed that X-TEK
intends to commence licenced productio of the CDVX-22 in the near future,
with MIDI recieving access to several advanced X-TEK high energy weapon
systems in return.

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     **THUDDD designs**
Winner March contest, Mercenary Cruiser
Catullus Aerospace Greek Fire Class (SSDS)

Submitted By:   James Dempsey   jamesd@spirit.com.au

Tons: 800Std (SL Sph)    Volume: 11200 m3       Cost: 591.8(540.2)MCr
Crew: 21                 High/Med Pass: 0/40    Low: 0
Cargo: 100Std            Controls: Mil(Fib)(B)  TL: 12

08 Size                             2 Jump Drive (80 Std/Pc Fuel)
1x 251Mj HvyLsr(+4) 1/5-4-2-1       2 Maneuver (2G T-Plates,400MW)
1x HvyMslTrt(+4) 4/4                1 Power Plant (2x250Mw+ 2x100Mw)
                                  167 Std Fuel (Refine 17, Scoop 167)
                                    0 Meson Screen
1x Min Hngr (Mod Cutter)            4 Sandcasters (120)
1x Docking Ring (50-ton Craft)      0 Nuclear Damper
                                  A10 P4 J10 Sensors (-3 Masking)
                                   30 Armour, 14 Structure

Crew Detail - 1 Maintenance, 2 Eng - Power Plant, 6 Eng - Drives,
              3 Electronics, 2 Maneuvering, 3 Gunnery - Other,
              2 Command, 1 Steward and 1 Medic.

Notes

     Catullus Aerospace presents its first quasi-military starship. The
'Greek Fire' class Mercenary Cruiser is designed to meet the needs of the
Imperial contracted mercenary group or corporate security organisation. We
would also be delighted to assist any planetary governments in discussing
how a contingent of 'Greek Fire' class ships could assist in fulfilling
their local security and rapid military deployment requirements.
     Armed with 4 of the latest, and most powerful yet, Sylea Industry
approved heavy laser turrets, alongside 4 standard heavy missile turrets, a
'Greek Fire' class starship is your company's ace in the hole for that hot
drop into hostile territory. You need no longer hope that a decent
percentage of your lightly armed shuttles, or temperamental drop capsules,
arrive safely. Now the fire support for your elite shock troops can come
with them all in one package.
     With these advanced weapons systems and the provision of 4 of the
recently released 'Guard' type sandcasters, your 'Greek Fire' starships can
also be used for anti-pirate operations such as base attacks or
neutralisation and boarding operations. The advanced communications suite
also allows its use as an orbital support and command platform, or even for
control of an orbit against a non-military opponent.
     Each 'Greek Fire' ship is capable of carring up to 40 troops. This
includes provision for a planning room for the troop and shared large
quarters for every two soldiers. This means that your troops arrive in prime
condition and preperation for the upcoming battle. Support facilities
include a full medical bay allowing for immediate treatment in safe
conditions of any casualties.
     Separate large staterooms are provided for the Captain and First
Officer of the ship. All other crew are accomodated two to a large stateroom. 
     For wilderness operation, or in a hostile location, fuel scoops have
been provided which will fill the ships' fuel tanks in a single hour, giving
you maximum flexibility. The scooped fuel can then be refined in 10 hours.
     Two Modular Cutters are provided to increase the flexibility of the
Mercenary Cruiser. These allow the despatch of negotiation teams, orbital
surveillance of multiple locations, and rapid dropoff and pickup
capabilities. Details of these modular cutters are shown below.

The modular cutter below is a design by Antti Lahtinen <lahtinen@ee.tut.fi>,
which was posted to the TML in February, 1997.

Modular Cutter/Thruster (Starship-V2)

Tons: 50Std (Ndl SL)    Volume: 700 m3          Cost: 38.004 MCr
Crew: 2                 High/Mid Pass: 0        Lo Pass: 0
Cargo: 5Std             Controls: Std           TL: 12

 7 Size                             0 Jump drive
 0 Fire Control                     4 Maneuver (Thruster plate, 70 MW)
                                    3.3 Power Plant (82 MW)
                                    0.9 Fuel (Scoop 30)
                                    0 Meson Screen (0 MW)
                                    0 Sandcasters (0 cans)
                                    0 Nuclear Damper
                                    0.01A 2P 0J Sensors
                                    20 Armor     6 Structure

Crew: 1 Maneuver, 1 Electronics
Accom: Cockpit
Average density: 1 ton/m3.
Notes: Price includes one 30 DT cargo module

Modular Cutter: The Modular Cutter is a multi-purpose cargo vehicle which
can be fitted with a variety of 30-ton (420 m3) modules. The outer shell of
the cutter's mid part open as a large cargo hatch, and a module is attached
to the cutter's spine between the cockpit and engine. The cargo hold has
lighter armor that the rest of the cutter (AV 20, Armor 10), but counts as
normal armor (AV 40, Armor 20) when a cargo module is carried internally.
The cutter has build-in fuel scoops which are used only when a fuel module
is or flexible 30 DT fuel bladder is fitted in the cargo hold. The external
dimensions of cargo modules are 4.60 x 25.26 m.

30-ton Cargo Module

Tons: 30Std (Ndl USL)    Volume: 420 m3         Cost: 83 kCr
Crew: 0                  High/Mid Pass: 0       Low Pass: 0
Cargo: 29.6Std           Controls: None         TL: 12

 7 Size                            10 Armor, 4 Structure

Cargo Module: Cargo modules are lightly armored interchangeable cargo
containers carried internally in the modular cutter. The cargo module has
414 m3 (29.6 DT) internal volume, and can withstand 4G acceleration. The
mass of fully loaded cargo module is 195 tons.


30-ton Troop Carrier Module

Tons: 30Std (Ndl USL)    Volume: 420 m3         Cost: 134 kCr
Crew: 0                  High/Mid Pass: 0       Low Pass: 0
Cargo: 1.5Std            Controls: None         TL: 12

 7 Size                            10 Armor, 4 Structure

Accom: 32 adequate seats, 10 DT minimal hangar

Troop Carrier Module: The troop carrier module is used to transport soldiers
and vehicles to surface targets. The module contains 10 DT minimal hangar,
1.5 DT cargo space, and seats for 32 troopers. The hangar may contain any
suitable large vehicle (large truck or a huge tank) or mix of smaller
vehicles (5 APCs or IFVs) as long as the total displacement of carried
vehicles does not exceed 10 DT.

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     **Biography**

Duchess Zhunette Rosale Cardell (nee Zhunastu)
Born: 024 - -16

Duchess Cardell is the neice of Emperor Cleon, and has been appointed as
his official liaison with the ISBA.

A graduate of the prestigous Armash University, she studied criminology and
earned a Master of Science in criminal psychology. The Duchess Cardell
married Corlon Cardell (son of the ruling family of the Shaglaath Empire)
in 0002. The couple settled on Sylea, where they became leading members of
the court social circuit, seen at many state functions. Corlon continued his
passion for grav racing, becoming a frequent sight at the Sylean Grand Prix
and many similiar sporting events. Regretably Duchess Cardell's charitable
works prevented her from joining her husband at many of these events.

The couple remained devoted to each other and their two children Corlon Jnr
(18) and Talin (16). However after 18 years of marriage their union was ended
by Corlon's tragic death in a grav racing accident 5 months ago. The Duchess
was reportedly devestated by her husbands death and was not seen in public
for several months after the event.

The Duchess is noted for her extensive charity work. Despite the pressures
on her time, she is a tireless worker for the education and care of Sylea's
underprivileged youths and is Patron of The Imperial Youth Hope Fund; as well
as being a member of the board of trustee's of several leading charities;
including the Emperor's Children and Mothers Trust and the Khargiip
Foundation. In 15 Emperor Cleon personally presented her with the Shield of
Hope award for her work with the underprivileged.

(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.
(The news items presented in this newsletter are unofficial and in no way
sanctioned by Imperium Games or FarFuture Enterprises)

*****************************************************************************

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1140
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Saturday, April 5 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1141



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Ohpps
RoM Technology (was Emperor's Arsenal and ref screen)
Colour of the sky
TLs of Imperiums I, II and III
Re: Not fighters, missile boats
Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)
Re: AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)
Re: misjump
Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)
Re: Color of the sky...
Re: System entry standards
Re: Much Ado About Starship Design
Re: AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)
Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)
Re: Fighters vs Capital Ships
Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters
Re: Boarding actions
Re: The fighter question
Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 00:03:55 +1200
From: Andrew Vallance <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
Subject: Ohpps

It appears I've sent the final draft of the newsletter to the list, rather
than out for final proofing, ohpps :*). Oh well, I guess it won't get the
final proofing.

  Andrew etc.
    a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz

****************************************************************************
  Be pure, Be strong, Behave
****************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 22:35:24 +1000 (EST)
From: Michael Barry <mbarry@pcug.org.au>
Subject: RoM Technology (was Emperor's Arsenal and ref screen)

In Milieu Zero there is some dispute about whether Zhunastu Industrial 
Laboratories (ZIL) actually invented Fusion Plus or copied it from RoM 
artifacts. The implication of this is that the RoM had technology 
*slightly* higher than that of the M:0 Syleans, perhaps borderline TL13. 
This makes archaeology potentially a highly profitable venture...but of 
course, the discovery of *working* artifacts would happen so rarely as to 
have zero impact on game play. 

Unless you happen to be playing Traveller: The Dungeon Era, in which case 
you should feel free to load up with the Hand and Eye of Vecna, ooops 
sorry, I mean Ancient artifacts that disintegrate enemies with a thought. 

**************************************************************************
Michael Barry
mbarry@pcug.org.au               <--- checked daily
**************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 22:49:49 +1000 (EST)
From: Michael Barry <mbarry@pcug.org.au>
Subject: Colour of the sky

CG
Thanks for raising a different topic from the (yawn!) thread on fighters  
clogging the TML at the moment. I really enjoy putting in little 
details like colour of sky, strength of wind, feel of gravity and so on 
to add authenticity. IMO, this is something the players will experience on 
*every* planetfall, whereas chitchat about the advantages of fighters in 
space combat will almost never be of any use. 

Back to the topic: 
Somebody stated that the taint won't have any effect on the colour of the 
sky, and this is correct for sulphur compounds. However, other taints 
like dust, smoke and so on will turn the sunlight a distinctive shade 
of yellow (if you've ever been near a bushfire you'll know what I'm 
talking about); if the atmosphere is tainted with sulphur, it 
is a fair bet that there is a lot of volcanic activity - and 
volcanoes don't just belch out 'colourless sulphur dioxide'!

Our sky is blue because our sunlight is scattered, but I don't know if 
different coloured sunlight (ie different star) would scatter 
differently - thus leading to a strangely coloured sky? 

Also, I'm not sure, but I think a chlorine taint might make the sky 
greenish. 

**************************************************************************
Michael Barry
mbarry@pcug.org.au               <--- checked daily
**************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 16:21:47 +0200
From: "Mark Seemann" <mark@dk-online.dk>
Subject: TLs of Imperiums I, II and III

4/4-97 Scott Ellsworth wrote:

> Someone should come up with a canonical answer, though, on what tech
level
> the Vilani and the ROM made it to.  Several points inside EA refer to TL
13
> equipment from the Vilani, which I had thought they did not make it to. 
I
> am, of course, willing to be shown otherwise.

According to Referee's Companion, p. 34 the First Imperium progressed as
follows:
- -9235  TL 9
- -8900  TL 10
- -5430  TL 11

Second Imperium:
- -2431  TL 9
- -2408  TL 10
- -2398  TL 11
- -2210  TL 12

Third Imperium:
- -1776  TL 10
- -650  TL 11
- -150  TL 12
300  TL 13
700  TL 14
1000  TL 15

Hope this helps

Mark Seemann
mark@dk-online.dk
http://www2.dk-online.dk/users/Mark_Seemann

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 10:05:36 -0500
From: Commander X <cmdrx@magicnet.net>
Subject: Re: Not fighters, missile boats

Greetings, 
I have noticed that many of you on TML have considered the design of 100
or 200Td vessels that cary a large main weapon and perhaps some
missiles.  Hate to break it to y'all but...

Been there, done that.

The first thing i designed with QSDS was the Assault Scout. It was
designed to be basicaly a fighter with j-drive.  I took the basic
Scout/Courier, added 6g plates and mounted a Military Laser (for the
+4FC mod).  These babies rock.  I have done combat scenarios with a
small squad of these things against small capitals around 2000Td and
less and found how effective they were.  Not bad, they gave the
destoryer a run for its money, but the destoryer managed to disable a
few with missiles and lasers.  Mind you I only threw 5 Assault Scouts at
the thing, more of these scouts could prolly disable or destory it.

The Assault Bomber design added 2 Missile barbettes.  It's cool to see
capitals waste lasers on missiles, so that when the Scouts come in the
capital has nothing left to fire on them with.

My question is, If i could build these things, whats to keep the Pocket
empires from building them? In my experience i find these mose effective
than fighters.  Jump capable, dont need smaller senors, and about 10x
the room to put stuff in.

I will contine building fighters just to see what can be done with a
small hull. :)
- -- 
Commander X
(cmdrx@magicnet.net <or> bprankard@theiia.org)
Creator, Maintainor, and Webmeister of "Planet X"
(www.magicnet.net/~cmdrx)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 05:46:11 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: submarine fighters (on topic, really) (was Re: closed systems)

In mail you write:

> Pirate vessels would be forced to making a living on the fringe
> systems with little or no police force that could monitor the system
> entry points that would be commonly used among the traders.

Don't forget that the "entry points" are more than a little spread out.
You can't pick a spot and jump to it, only sort of close to it. (I'm
going to have to collect all the rules about jump accuracy and see what
I can find).

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 04:38:49 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)

In mail you write:

> I don't know how useful it would be, but I know I wouldn't want to be
> anywhere near that sitting duck errr AWACS ship when it lights up it's
> active sensors....then _everything_ will see it, unless you're also
> positing that (like our AWACS aircraft) they also have significant jamming
> capability.

Trouble is, you *can't* "jam" IR. Well you can put out "flares", but
sensors can easily ignore ones that aren't radiating at the "right"
wavelengths/intensities.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 05:31:39 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: misjump

In mail you write:

>>I think people have overlooked the special reservoir of emergency fuel
>>that most merchant ships carry...
>>They're called *passengers*...
>
> I beg to differ. Water, beer, fruit, cargo, passengers et al are all
> unrefined. Extracting the hydrogen will yield less than 10% of its mass as
> fuel. Even if the entire ship was a cargo bay of beer it wouldn't have
> enough hydrogen for a jump-1.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Water, people, beer, etc *all* have *more*
Hydrogen per unit *volume* than LH2!

Work it out. A cubic meter of water weighs 1 ton. One ninth of that is
hydrogen. So that gives 111 kilos per cubic meter. Or 1556 kilos per
displacement ton. 

Trouble is, each passenger is a lot *less* than a cubic meter. 10 tons
of hydrogen would take around 100 passengers.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 06:30:52 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)

In mail you write:

> So here's the question:  is there a useful role that fighters can perform
> in naval (space) combat?  That role doesn't have to be killing
> dreadnoughts.  If there is a role, then build 'em and use 'em.  If not, 
> don't.

I think so. 

Since a fighter is essentially the *only* vessel that can run at a
higher acceleration than the g-comps can nuetralize, it does have the
ability to do things you can't do with larger vessels. 

They make good scout/recon ships simply because they are small enough
to give a small signature (even on IR), and they can outrun pursuit. 

So they are good gor checking out that target that looks to be a meteor
on sensors, or for dropping that agent somewhere (if they have the
range). 

They are also useful against lightly armed and armored merchant
vessels. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 05:50:56 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Color of the sky...

In mail you write:

> Okay, all you chemists and astronomers out there, here's a question for you:
>
> I've got my players going to Bruyere in Deneb sector. The atmosphere is
> very thin, tained, with my handy dandy World Builder's Handbook determining
> that the taint consists primarily of sulphur compounds. Bruyere orbits a F0
> V primary, so it's a pretty bright white main sequence star. The planet is
> only 40 percent water, so it's likely to be fairly dry, too. And yes, since
> it's the system mainworld, the planet is in the habitable zone.
>
> Question: what color would the sky be in broad daylight? At sunset? I think
> I've got night solved. <g>

Sunset will definitely be red. That's due to absorportion and the like.

But I think you are going to run into a situation like Mars. Sulfur
compounds in the air tend to abosorb blue light *very* strongly. They
also tend to form fine aerosols. Which will act like the dust in Mars'
very thin atmosphere. 

So the daylight sky will be *pink*!

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 05:42:27 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: System entry standards

In mail you write:

> To lay out some background, I am a USAF pilot and have done quite abit of
> flying throughout the world.  The International Civil Aviation
> Organization(ICAO) is made up of over 180 nations and they got together and
> devised procedures that would be commonly used for flying within a nations
> airspace.  A great idea, but the individual member nations may comply with
> some, all or none of the criteria.  
>
> Heck our own planet can't even agree to agree on standard arrival and
> departure procedures. Having seen the disparity just on this planet I find it
> difficult to believe that developing standards for arrival procedures in each
> star system extraordinarily unlikely.  It might make for some interesting
> discussion here as to what types of standards might be used and how word gets
> out (and not) to the common users (i.e. commercial freight and passenger
> carriers and private use spacecraft).  

I like to think about some of the "Notices to Space Pilots" for
different systems. Like the area marked do not enter on the chart
because it's the path for "free transit" cargoes launched by mass
driver from the asteroid belt. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 06:38:23 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Much Ado About Starship Design

In mail you write:

> Actually, subregional is the transition between the 30/300/3000 
> progression, and the personal combat ranges.
>
> The full table is as follows (Gathered from T4 and CSC):
>
>   0   Contact              3 m
>   1   V. Short            15 m
>   2   Short               45 m
>   3   Medium             150 m 
>   4   Long               450 m
>   5   V. Long           1500 m
> ( 6*  E. Long           4500 m  )   
>   6?  Subregional         10 km
>   7?  Regional            30 km
>   8?  Subcontinental     300 km   
>   9?  Continental       3000 km
>  10?  Orbital          30000 km
>  11?  Far Orbit       300000 km


Sorry, but this is *two* (or more!) tables jammed together.

Please note that ranges 1 thru 6* are using steps of 3+ per level (step
of x3, every other step is x10 of the one 2 before it).

The 7 thru 11 ranges use steps of x10. 

Therefore, these *aren't* the same table because they scale differently!

My post the other day shows what you get with a scaling factor of 3+
per step all the way up to parsec. That was, I trust, overkill?

Factor of 10 is just fine for space (and most other things). Heck, it's
silly to use those factor of 3 steps on some of the other things.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 04:42:51 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)

In mail you write:

>>Stealthy ships with huge passive arrays, now those are a horse of a
>>different color...I think we discussed THOSE to death a few months ago;-)
>
> Question: in order to pick up stuff, someone has to been sending out
> signals for it to pick up.  Who's doing the sending?

Remember, in space, the *only*  thing affecting signal strength is the
inverse square law. No atmospheric absorption to worry about. 

So all the RF that leaks from ships, all the neutrino emissions, the
"glow" of the drive, the IR radiated by the various sections of the
ship. It's all there to be picked up. 

And the IR is the biggy. The background is interstellar space. At 3
degrees Kelvin. Humans and anything at a comfortable temp for them
radiate around 300K. The waste heat from the powerplant, drives, etc
has to be radiated from the ship or the ship will get hotter until it
*is* radiated as fast as it's created. You can't "mask" the IR.
Attempting to redirect it to limited areas of the hull uses *lots* of
energy, resulting in an overall signal that is *stronger*. 

And heck, just sunlight heating the hull will make a decent signal. 

Gimme a ship, and some Schmidt cameras (a type of telescope) set up for
work in the appropriate IR bands and I'll have every ship in transit in
a system located in a matter of hours. Due to the extra "noise" around
planets it'll take a few days to spot the stuff in orbits. Then I can
jump out from my vantage point (near system zenith or nadir and *well*
out from the ecliptic) long before anybody gets there. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 06:16:58 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)

In mail you write:

>>> Also, i would assume that a fighter could get to its top speed a
>>> whole lot faster than a large ship.

>> That's all a matter of Gs of acceleration, "top speed" in space is
>> fairly close to the speed of light, so there isn't any real top
>> speed.  However, beyond certain speeds it becomes difficult to
>> engage in space combat, since no matter how much accleration you can
>> manage, you're still pretty much traveling in a straight line.

> This is an incorrect assumption.  Top speed is whatever a space craft has
> been built to go upto.  Im sure light speed isnt one of them (mayb absurd
> speed:).  Each tech level logically would have an upper limit of the
> absolute fastest speed it can build engines to.

You need a course in physics. 

In space, objects in motion *keep* moving. If you fire your engines, it
changes your vector (speed and or direction). Your "top speed" is
solely a matter of how *long* you can maintain acceleration. 

Velocity = Acceleration * Time

So a ship that can accelerate at 6g for 10 minutes, and one that can
accelerate at 1 g for 60 minutes both have the same "top speed". And
they'll both have to be rescueed if they reach it, because they will
have used all their fuel to reach it and thus can't slow down!

The ship that can accelerate at 6 g will reach a given speed *faster*
than the one that can only do 1 g. But these two ships can both reach
the same speeds. 

But if two ships both have a maximum *acceleration* of 6g, then neither
*regardless of size* can reach a given speed "faster" than the other.
If one has the fuel to accelerate at 6g *longer* than the other, then
it can reach a higher speed. 


- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 05:56:50 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Fighters vs Capital Ships

In mail you write:

> Imagine, you're a Vilani officer aboard the ZS Eneri VIII battleship.
> It's a 10,000Td egg-shape, with Jump-2, maybe 3Gs of acceleration (all that
> you can compensate) and a whopping big meson gun, the biggest you can hold.
> (The Vilani like spheres for ship hulls, but a sphere is the worst thing
> in the world to put a spinal mount in. Eggs are a nice comprimise for those
> old-fashioned Vilani). What other weapons are there? Some missles maybe.
> Maybe a few point defence weapons, anti-missle lasers, but not much other
> than the spinal mount. There's no use for anything else - it isn't able
> to damage the enemy. Military doctrines is to close into spinal mount
> range on the enemy as fast as possible then hit them before they hit you.
> (Hopefully you have a longer range and more armor). That's it.
>
> One day, you engage the enemy (a strange looking vessel without a spinal
> mount - easy target!) and before you manage to close in close enough
> to loose your meson gun, the enemy ship disgorges a couple hundred ships
> that are about 50td each. Huh? What do you shoot them with? You've got a
> few missles, but not enough. You have a few point defence lasers, but not
> that many. What the hell is powering those things? You've got the meson
> gun, but it can't come to bear fast enough on those things (which are 
> probably
> pulling 6 or more Gs, with pilots in acceleration tanks). Sure you're
> heavily armoured, but they can get real close and punch through the soft 
> parts - probably even firing right into the main meson firing tube!!
> This is not looking good. You'd run, but they can chase you. Hopefully you're
> not too close to a gravity well to jump...

Why aren't the anti-missile lasers taking out the fighters? After all,
even without fusion+, I can build 500 ton MIRVs. Carry a ridiculous
number of missiles, get into the range where the lasers are just
starting to be a threat, and then disgorge a few hundred Sprint
missiles or the like (the Sprint would list in trav terms as something
like 500g for 30 seconds). And the "bus" would bore on in too. It'd be
dangerous just from the mass!

> Now, this sort of situation wouldn't last long - maybe a century until all
> the old ships get destroyed and ship yards have had time to turn out
> ships that are bristling with a mixture of small, medium and large weapons.
> In that century though, the Sylean Federation becomes the Third Imperium.

Betcha it doesn't last more than 5-10 *years* at any given place. But
as long as they can keep fusion+ a secret from the folks thy are
*fighting*, they *can't* refit, because they can't build it. 

Sure, knowing that it's *possible, the more flexible cultures may
actually discover it before their war is over. But likely not in time
to make a difference.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 04:57:53 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters

In mail you write:

> If a fighter has the right weaponry (For space combat i would say missiles
> and space bombs with proxiamety charges) it just doesnt matter how thick
> the armour is.  People seem to think fighters are one shot weapons, there
> not.  They hit in waves, first waves drops there payload, returns to
> carrier, refuels and rearms.  While this is going on the second and third
> waves have hit.  A Battleship can only take so much damage from Nuclear
> warheads and Fusion/Fission/Anti-Matter bombs.

The problem is that to hurt the "battleship" they have to *hit* it or
at least get within not all that many km of it. 

But the lasers and PAWs on the battleship can detect and target the
fighters and missiles at 30,000 km! In fact, at that range, they have
essentially *no* chance of closing unless there are enough of them to
overwhelm the fire control. Which is very unlikely (it'd take
*thousands*). 

Also, your "waves" idea doesn't work in space combat. The ships are
moving so fast that if a fighter did a "close pass" it could take it
*hours* to be able get back to its carrier. 

> Armour is a measure of endurance in these sort of battles, not a guarntee
> of safety.

Yes, but the beam weapons make missiles and fighters next to useless.
Unlike WWII, these are going to hit what they shoot at. Every time. The
only defence is to be far enough away that your evasive manuevers can
cause the beam to miss. That means several light seconds. That's
several times the distance to the *moon*.

>> One might argue that the fighters are smaller, possibly more agile (since
>> they can rotate faster to change the angle of their thrust) and hence
>> harder to hit. However, such advantages only matter at moderate-to-long
>> ranges; at short ranges (<30,000km), no amount of agility can stop a good
>> closed-loop laser tracking system from hitting. A single hit from a
>> laser turret will destroy a fighter, so the fighters (to be effective)
>> have to stay at long ranges (not very exciting or heroic) plinking away
>> with lasers. You might as well put all the lasers on a battlerider where
>> you can protect them with some armour in the first place.
>
> I dont think this is plausiable either.  Your assuming that fighters are
> one-hit weapons and that they have no counter measures.  I also think its
> absurd that you effectively state that a fighters agility is helpful at
> medium to long ranges, but useless at short ranges.  At short ranges is
> where it counts.

Sorry, it's 100% plausible. There *aren't* any counter-measures against
a laser of the power we are talking about except to not be where it is
aimed. And *that* requires being far enough out that speed of light lag
prevents the computer from changing where the beam is aimed faster than
you can dodge.

Consider. In one second, with a 6g drive, you can change your position
from your predicted position by 60 meters. Assuming that your fighter
is only *10* meters across, that's 6 diameters. So at 1/2 a light
second, you are safe because the light/radar/whatever signal that
bounced off your fighter took 1/2 a second to get to the enemy, and the
return laser shot takes 1/2 second to come back (plus a few
milliseconds for calculating and aiming). So by the time it gets there
you are 60 meters away.

Now try this at .1 light seconds. The lag is .2 seconds. In that time
you can only move 2.4 meters with a 6g drive. That's a lot less than
the 10 meters across that your fighter is. So the shot aimed "dead
center" hits a couple meters to the side. You've still been hit.

Note that .1 light second is 30,000 kilometers!

And yes, the lasers *can* change aiming point that fast. All they have
to do is swivel a mirror a tiny bit.

> I would love to see an example of what you said in any modern battle.
> Show a battle where a fighters agility works against them at short range.

It's not that the agility works against them, it's that the shorter the
range the shorter the "time of flight" of the laser beam. The agility
is *irrelevant* at closer ranges.

Sorry, but lasers make closing with an enemy ship *suicide*.

> Aircraft won because of speed and agility, and being able to deliver
> high-powered explosives without being hit, and being able to do this
> repeatedly. 
>
> How wouldnt this hold true in Traveller?

Because they can no longer avoid being hit if they close with the
enemy. Lasers and modern tracking make that *certain*.

> Thats why AC weaponry has increased in range and accuracy.  I also dont
> believe point defense is as effective as you claim.  500 planes swoop down
> on a ship, and its dead baby.  Point defense may take down a few, but
> the rest are still going to deliver there payload.  

In traveller, your 500 fighters are going to be starting from hundreds
of thousands of km away. Consider a fighter that survives to launch a
missile at the .1 light second range. It's still got to cross 30,000
km. In plain sight, with the exhaust plume backlighting it every time
it makes a course change. And with the lasers getting *more* accurate
every meter of the way. And the effectiveness of dodging dropping every
meter of the way.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 10:01:19 -0600 (CST)
From: nrunner@ix.netcom.com (Archie T.)
Subject: Re: Boarding actions

insystem navy ships can patrol these areas, and provide patrols if 
needed badly enough. Pirates/navies would also be able to change their 
dv to match ships with, say, 1 or 2G's acceleration, typical for 
traders OR A SPECIFIC SHIP, FROM A SPECIFIC SYSTEM. With over 100 hexes 
 within 6 hexes, there will be many, many jump points, some will 
overlap. But guess on inbound stats for ships from and empty/deep space 
refueling hex is much more difficult. 

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 10:51:15 -0600 (CST)
From: nrunner@ix.netcom.com (Archie T.)
Subject: Re: The fighter question

really. This no drag factor is  THE ONLY way a 100+ kg PIONEER probe, 
and others could have travelled the distance they did. The booster just 
put the probe in a high energy state, relative to the earth surface, 
and SMALL engines. Ditto all those rocks. ALL metiorites have a MIN 11 
km/s impact vel: this is the escape speed FROM earth. To earth too:)    
Imagine spaceships use the engines they have pushing the ship, or even 
rox, in even an air type medium. impossible, just about. high KE missle 
 can/are a menace. They require development of small escorts with lots 
of lasers, 6Gs, and microjumps: high fuel storage for 
lasers/mjumps/shielding, to deal with missles or even fighters.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 09:55:25 -0700
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors

At 03:00 pm 04/04/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>In a message dated 4/4/97 6:37:36 AM, David J. Golden wrote:
>
><<Again, if you look at the original message,
>firing thrusters #1 and #2 results in a net change in my course.>>
>
>True it would change your course, but by how much? If it is just attitude
>jets, I would have to say: not much. Even rotating and firing main thrust
>might only result in a small adjustment to course if you are travelling at
>high velocity (which in interplanetary travel you would be).

	Sure, it wouldn't matter for combat targetting. But it'll make it
difficult to board, because you CAN'T perfectly match my course if I'm
changing. And that was the whole point of the discussion (see the Subject:
Boarding Action). As long as I can rotate or translate my ship, it's going
to make it harder for anybody to latch on. Not impossible, depending on how
much linear/rotational acceleration I can put out. But harder.
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 09:58:46 -0700
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)

At 03:00 pm 04/04/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>In a message dated 4/4/97 6:20:54 AM, Solomani wrote:
>
><<>That's all a matter of Gs of acceleration, "top speed" in space is fairly
>>close to the speed of light, so there isn't any real top speed. However,
>>beyond certain speeds it becomes difficult to engage in space combat,
>>since
>>no matter how much accleration you can manage, you're still pretty much
>>traveling in a straight line.
>
>This is an incorrect assumption.  Top speed is whatever a space craft has
>been built to go upto.  Im sure light speed isnt one of them (mayb absurd
>speed:).  Each tech level logically would have an upper limit of the
>absolute fastest speed it can build engines to.>>

	Sorry, learn basic physics. YOU have an incorrect assumption. Top speed on
Earth is limited by drag and friction effects. At the point where drag
equals thrust, you can't go any faster.

	 Drag and friction are negligible in an environment where you have a
single atom per cubic METER! The effective top limits on speed in space are
solely how long you can thrust your drive. Period. Dot. The theoretical
limit remains the speed of light.
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1141
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Saturday, April 5 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1142



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Submarine Fighters
Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)
Re: AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)
AUCTION UPDATE #3
Re: Submarine Fighters
Re: Fighters
Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)
Law School
Re: Law School
[none]
Retirement Pay for 2 Careers
Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
Small fighters vs. big fighters
Re: Fighters
Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters
Re: Not fighters, missile boats
Re: AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 10:14:27 -0700
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

At 03:00 pm 04/04/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>In a message dated 4/4/97 6:21:10 AM, you wrote:
>
><<The same thing is operating in Traveller space combat.  The fastest fighter
>still has 
>only Maneuver-6, the same as the fastest battleship.  It generally has better
>agility 
>(under the High Guard system, anyway), but it can't accelerate any faster.
> So submarine 
>fighters are a good analogy for space fighters in this respect -- and that
>supports the 
>argument that space fighters won't be an effective force in ship-to-ship
>actions.
>>>
>
>See, this depends on which version of Traveller you are using. In TNE you can
>have more then 6G acceleration.

	Yep. As well as T4. But that applies to both battleships and fighters.
Again, the only limitation on maximum acceleration is how much the crew can
handle. And don't try to handwave about how fighter pilots are better
positioned to handle G-stress. Any naval designer who can't design a
battleship with the acceleration properly directed to allow a battleship
crew to sit in the same kind of seats as the fighter crew, and hence handle
the same acceleration, is a submoronic cretin.

	So, the ONLY advantage small vessels have over large vessels is the
ability to change direction faster. Big vessels have the advantage of armor
that can be invulnerable to small weapons, they can carry defenses such as
nuclear dampers and sandcasters, they can carry sufficient weapons to fry
fighters in a single shot (a single 800ROF laser can kill 800 fighters in a
single turn), they can carry sensors that can detect and target fighters at
greater ranges, etc.

	So fighters just don't make sense as the "king of the battlefield" in
Traveller. They play a supporting role, as scouts, commerce raiders,
pickets, etc. No more. Any admiral who tries to use fighters against
capital ships is as moronic as the naval designer I mentioned above.

	The only way to make fighters into the glorious toys you want is to
completely and totally rewrite all of the Traveller space combat and design
rules, ignoring the SCIENCE in SCIENCE fiction. If I wanted to play space
fantasy, I'd play Star Wars anyway.
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 10:48:44 -0700
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)

At 06:30 am 04/05/97 PST, you wrote:
>In mail you write:
>
>> So here's the question:  is there a useful role that fighters can perform
>> in naval (space) combat?  That role doesn't have to be killing
>> dreadnoughts.  If there is a role, then build 'em and use 'em.  If not, 
>> don't.
>
>I think so. 
>
>Since a fighter is essentially the *only* vessel that can run at a
>higher acceleration than the g-comps can nuetralize,

	Why? Yes, I can't run my 500,000Dt battleship at 3G over GComp for weeks.
But the fighter can't do that either, because it doesn't have the endurance.

	Any naval designer worth the designation will design warships with the
thrust vector aligned properly and acceleration couches for the entire
crew. So I can't do damage control while running at 3G excess. Neither can
the "fighter."

> it does have the
>ability to do things you can't do with larger vessels. 

	Given that I _can_ run a properly designed warship of any size at excess
G's, this kind of falls out.

>They make good scout/recon ships simply because they are small enough
>to give a small signature (even on IR), and they can outrun pursuit. 

	Yes.

>So they are good gor checking out that target that looks to be a meteor
>on sensors, or for dropping that agent somewhere (if they have the
>range). 

	Yes.

>They are also useful against lightly armed and armored merchant
>vessels. 

	Yes.
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 11:50:26 +0000
From: twolf@unix.tfs.net
Subject: Re: AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)

> In mail you write:
> 
> > I don't know how useful it would be, but I know I wouldn't want to
> > be anywhere near that sitting duck errr AWACS ship when it lights
> > up it's active sensors....then _everything_ will see it, unless
> > you're also positing that (like our AWACS aircraft) they also have
> > significant jamming capability.
> 
> Trouble is, you *can't* "jam" IR. Well you can put out "flares", but
> sensors can easily ignore ones that aren't radiating at the "right"
> wavelengths/intensities.
>
No you don't "Jam"  IR, you "Mask" it.  At least that is what we do 
at TL8.

Everyone seems to forget, once you make a tech advance in one area, 
someone comes up with a counter or a counter counter measure to 
negate or limit the benefits of the advance.

Just because the limited ship combat systems for traveller don't 
address it doesn't mean that there wouldn't be ECM and ECCM to help 
ships avoid detection at higher tech levels.

 JD
 Twolf 

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 12:40:46 -0600
From: Paul Walker <tiger@goldinc.com>
Subject: AUCTION UPDATE #3

This is the final announcement to the list.  I will be accepting new bids
for any item until Tuesday, April 8, 1997.  On Wednesday I plan to send out
private notices to everyone who has bid on an item.  The bidding will then
continue in private until one bidder is left.

OK, now on to the items for sale:


CLASSIC TRAVELLER

Book 6: Scouts     GDW 1983     Mid Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $7.00  -  Danny M. Moody

Adv 2:  Research Station Gamma     GDW 1980     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $7.00  -  Jason Anderson

Adv 3:  Twilight's Peak     GDW 1980     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid: $15.00  -  Keith Salakar

Fifty Starbases     Judges Guild 1981     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid: $10.00  -  Keith Salakar


MEGATRAVELLER

Boxed Set (with 9-1-90 errata)     GDW 1987     Min Bid: $15.00
    Includes:  Players' Manual; Referee's Manual; Imperial
                   Encyclopedia; and Spinward Marches Map
Bid: $17.00  -  Jeff Harvey

Rebellion Sourcebook     GDW 1988     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $5.00  -  Steven Hudson

Referee's Companion     GDW 1988     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $6.00  -  Jeff Brawley

Hard Times     GDW 1991     Min Bid: $8.00
Bid:  $10.00  -  Steven Hudson

Starship Operator's Manual     DGP 1988     Min Bid: $12.00
Bid: $15.00  -  Jason Anderson

Vilani & Vargr     DGP 1990     Min Bid: $15.00
Bid: $25.00  -  Zane H. Healy

MegaTraveller Journal #4     DGP 1993     Min Bid: $5.00
     (Lords of Thunder, K'kree Issue)
Bid: $15.00  -  Zane H. Healy

Arrival Vengeance     GDW 1992     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $12.00  -  Christian Razukas


TRAVELLER: THE NEW ERA

Survival Margin     GDW 1993     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $8.00  -  Steven Hudson

Main Rulebook (Mark 1, Mod 1, Dec 93)     GDW 1993     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $7.00  -  Jeff Harvey

Brilliant Lances     GDW 1993     Min Bid: $10.00
Bid: $18.00  -  Jeff Harvey

Fire, Fusion, & Steel (Mk 1, Mod 1, Jan 94)     GDW 1993     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid: $17.00  -  KevinC

Smash & Grab     GDW 1994     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $6.00  -  Timothy Collinson

Referee's Screen (W/ Lady Elise)     GDW 1994     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $6.00  -  Timothy Collinson

Battle Rider     GDW 1993     Min Bid: $10.00
Bid: $18.00  -  Jeff Harvey

Path of Tears     GDW 1993(?)     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $6.00  -  Timothy Collinson

Reformation Coalition Equipment Guide    GDW 1994     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $9.00  -  Jeff Harvey

World Tamer's Handbook     GDW 1994    Min Bid: $10.00
Bid: $20.00  -  Eric Holmes

Vampire Fleets     GDW 1995     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid: $11.00  -  Dedly

Striker II      GDW 1994    Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $6.00  -  Steven Hudson
      $6.00  -  Timothy Collinson

Regency Sourcebook     GDW 1995     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $9.00  -  Jeff Harvey

Star Vikings     GDW 1994     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $6.00  -  Timothy Collinson

Hiver & Ithklur     GDW 1995     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $6.00  -  Solomani

Regency Combat Vehicle Guide     GDW 1995     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $8.00  -  Kevin Walsh

The Guilded Lilly     GDW 1995     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $6.00  -  Steven Hudson
      $6.00  -  Timothy Collinson

MARK MILLER'S TRAVELLER

Hardbound Rulebook (Signed)     Imperium Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $10.00  -  Marshall Bautista

Starships     Imperium Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $7.00  -  Jeff Harvey

Central Supply Catalog     Imperuim Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $8.00  -  Steven Hudson

Aliens Archive     Imperium Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid: $11.00  -  Steve Hudson
     $11.00  -  Solomani

Mileau 0     Imperium Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid: $12.00  -  John MacPherson

First Survey     Imperium Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid: $11.00  -  Steve Hudson

JTAS 25     Imperium Games 1996     Min Bid: $5.00
Bid:  $7.00  -  Danny M. Moody


RULES

1.  All prices are considered to include postage to the continental USA.

     MORE INFO ON POSTAGE:
          US POSTAGE:  Parcel Post will be used for all shipping of one item.
                       Priority Mail will be used for orders of more than 1
item.
                       For Priority Mail for single item orders, add $1.00.
                       For Express Mail (Second Day to Post Office) add $10.00.
          CANADA:  Canada postage is Standard Letter Rate (Add $1.00 per item)
          OTHER:  Postage is not included and will be approximately
                   $5.00 for the first item and $2.00 per item after the first.

For more than 5 items, postage will be figured more precisely.
Other postage options will be considered and possibly used at the bidders
decision.

2.  Nothing will be shipped until I get a check.  Sorry, but I've been a
sucker one to many times already in this life.

3.  Bids for all items will be posted twice weekly.

4.  After the final posting, any additional bids will be directly hashed out
by me between all remaining bidders.

5.  All bids MUST be in whole dollar increments, and payment must be in US
Dollars.

6.  SPECIAL BONUS!!! The Buyer with the highest total price will get free
50Cr of Imperial Currency imprinted with Strephon's empression. (In 10Cr slips).

7.  Only bid if you intend to buy.



    Paul {tiger}
     tiger@goldinc.com
     http://www.goldinc.com/~tiger

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 19:46:50 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

On Fri, 4 Apr 1997 15:00:41 -0500 (EST), you wrote:

>=20
> In a message dated 4/4/97 6:26:53 AM, James Lindsay wrote:
>=20
> <<While it may be true that fighters don't need
> jump drives, large fuel supplies, sick bays, repair/refitting =
facilities,
> hangers, a frozen watch, etc. on board, they do need access to them at
> *some* time.  In a way, part of the cost (and tonnage) of a fighter is =
made
> up of a fraction of the carrier/base itself.>>
>=20
> This is true, however, the point of fighters is that the support =
facilities
> (carrier or base) are not placed in the thick of danger. [At least, =
that's
> the hope.]

Of course.  The same holds true for Imperial Battlerider squadrons.
It is just that some people are arguing the (better) cost
effectiveness of fighters, yet forget to mention the manditory carrier
or base.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 20:03:18 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Fighters

On Sat, 05 Apr 1997 05:13:32 -0500, you wrote:

> >Look at what we used
> >to teach Iraq a lesson; no aircraft, just Cruisers, Destroyers and =
Subs
> >launching cruise missiles from beyond his range. Aircraft are too
> >fragile to send to downtown Baghdad!=20
>=20
> I'm laughing.  Even CNN knew more than you do.
>=20
> Err, sorry. Not during the war, only the last few times we attacked =
him.

Excuse me, but I think the war was still raging during "the last few
times we attacked him".

> However, during the war we DID NOT sent any aircraft over Baghdad until
> the air defense system was taken down. And that includes the F-117.  We
> took it down with some very neat tricks prior to the war starting.

Your definition as to when the "war" officially started and ended is
amusing, especially since you acknowledge attacks that take place both
before and after.  I believe James Gariss's reply was accurate, based
on the content of your original post.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 20:22:13 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)

On Fri, 04 Apr 1997 14:57:51 -0500, you wrote:

> Most actions do not involve 100s of aircraft today. Only if it is a
> major war. 100s of missiles are another story. I was in a naval =
exercise
> back in the 80=92s where we launched over 300 (SIMULATED) missiles at =
the
> main Russian fleet. NONE got through. If that had been aircraft, NOBODY
> would have returned. Try and convince that next crew to get into the
> fighters.

Say Bob, any truth to the rumour that the US Navy used "Three-Sixty"s
Harpoon series of computer simulation games to train their own people?

> I will not, nor will anyone else stop you from using fighters. They are
> lots of fun and many people will believe in them based on Star Wars and
> other shows. However, within Traveller rules, and our best guess about
> reality, (such as that is:) fighters are about as useful as pigs in
> space.

That's "Piiigggs in Spaaaaacee!!"  Miss Piggy vs. a Capital ship?  No
contest :)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 12:04:53 -0800
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Law School

>From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>

>        Something that might be worth considering is the fact that many
>jurisdictions require an apprenticeship period either before or after bar
>school.  In Ontario, it goes 3 years law school, 6-8 months articles,6-8

[deletion]

>        Maybe Volker can tell us how it works in Germany?

My understanding, based on conversations with my German partner and my German legal 
intern, is that the normal career path is like this:  Age 18, finish Gymnasium (i.e., 
high school); ages 18-20, mandatory military service; age 20, begin law school; age 25 
or so, take written exam; during that same time, get a position as a Referendar with a 
law firm, corporate legal department, court, or some other practical legal setting; 
after that, take oral exam.  At about age 26, having passed both exams and completed a 
3-month Referendar program, you're allowed to practice law.  

One interesting distinction between the common law and civil law systems, which is 
reflected in legal education, is the position of the judge.  Usually, judges in a common 
law jurisdictions have been civil litigators or criminal lawyers (usually prosecutors) 
for twenty years (or a long time, anyway) and are appointed (or, depending on the place 
and the level of the judge, elected) by the executive branch.  The position of judge is 
very prestigious, they have a lot of authority and discretion, and they serve as a 
neutral regulator and manager of the litigation process.  

In civil law systems, on the other hand, a law student can specialize in judging, and 
can get a civil service job as a judge right out of law school.  Judges don't have the 
same prestige as in common law countries, and act in court much more as a representative 
of the state than as a neutral figure.

I expect that Imperial and local courts will be eclectic on this issue.  I haven't 
decided whether the Terrans carried more of a civil law or a common law tradition into 
space; probably it was mixed, and the resulting judiciary is mixed by the time of the 
Third Imperium.

- --Glenn

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 12:14:28 -0800
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Re: Law School

>From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>

>> And do you actually know any American nationals who have
>> gotten an LL.M. since, say, 1950?
>
>Sure.  But only from U.K. universities 8-).

I had many law professors who had LL.M.s that they had received from 
U.S. law schools in the 1970s.  (All or virtually all of my law 
professors were U.S. nationals.)

- --Glenn

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 13:08:58 -0800
From: Mike Linsenmayer <mike-l@sure.net>
Subject: [none]

Hi, New to the digest, 
I have a New Traveller Web Site dedicated to detailed world descriptions

I also have lots of Traveller stuff for sale including some  hard to find Traveller goodies


HTTP://www.sure.net/~mike-l

SEE YA!

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 16:34:58 -0500
From: James Garriss <jpg@langley.mitre.org>
Subject: Retirement Pay for 2 Careers

If a character serves 3 terms in one career and 2 more in another, does he
still get retirement pay?

 James Garriss                          System Engineer, MITRE               
 jpg@langley.mitre.org          http://www.cs.odu.edu/~garriss      

Unix csh/sh command:
% If I had a ( for every $ the Congress spent, what would I have?
Too many ('s.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 15:28:50 -0700
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors

David J. Golden wrote:
> 
>         Sure, it wouldn't matter for combat targetting. But it'll make it
> difficult to board, because you CAN'T perfectly match my course if I'm
> changing. And that was the whole point of the discussion (see the Subject:
> Boarding Action). As long as I can rotate or translate my ship, it's going
> to make it harder for anybody to latch on. Not impossible, depending on how
> much linear/rotational acceleration I can put out. But harder.

This was my point from the beginning. That's why you (as the pirate)
want either the computer/pilot or power plant disabled. That way
the steering jets aren't working.
- -- 
Erwin Fritz
Unix/NT/LAN Guy
Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd.
http://www.glja.com

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 17:24:22 -0600 (CST)
From: Brad Vender <vender@plains.nodak.edu>
Subject: Small fighters vs. big fighters

To continue the thread of why fighters should be effective, there
  are some important things to consider:

  1.  Just because the time consumed in one game turn is 10 minutes,
      doesn't mean that characters are only performing actions which
      last for 10 minutes.  If a ship manages to board another, and
      you end up trying to conduct combat simultaneously on the two
      scales, it is entirely possible that the entire boarding action
      will be finished in one or two starship combat turns.

  2.  What I've always wondered about is why there isn't a spinal version
      of the laser turret for ships which are manuverable to to use it.
      After all, the weapon systems and propulsion systems on a fighter
      are going to be the primary consumers of space and mass, so it
      shouldn't be a big concern to the fighter pilot if he has to 
      shoot in the direction he's moving.  Of course I'm assuming that the
      extra benefit of the spinal style laser weapons would be increased
      damage potential.

      I mean, if your in a 10 ton fighter, you really don't care about
      having a weapon which can rotate to fire, simply because you should
      be able to turn your ship around and shoot back fairly easily
      (or possibly even just do a 180 and bring your weapon to bear).

      Does anyone know if FF&S or any of the more recent ship design
      systems support this idea?

  3.  Its been awhile since I've played a starship combat, but given
      the relatively large defensive DMs for the TL15 fighter in
      the MegaTraveller naval book (I forget the name, but its the one
      with all the capital ships in it), the fighters should be fairly
      survivable.

  4.  Maybe I've just been watching Babylon 5 and other shows too often,
      but it seems to me that a small carrier with 5 to 10 fighters
      should be more effective than the equivalent SDB in performing routine
      patrols.  Especially if your concern is mostly with dealing with
      smaller ship (i.e. 500 tons or less).

      Then again, the approach to fighter carriers which don't have
      internal landing bays would be maybe cheap enough to allow effective
      fighter carriers too.

Either way, I haven't played around with the combat system enough to know
  for sure, but I would assume its the same as for BattleTech the last
  time I played, that the smaller ships should be just as effective together
  as the big ships, given the right tactics.

- --Brad

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 16:54:36 -0700 (MST)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Fighters

 
> > Err, sorry. Not during the war, only the last few times we attacked =
> him.
> 
> Excuse me, but I think the war was still raging during "the last few
> times we attacked him".

Clinton has ordered such cruise missile attacks during his first
term.  This (IMO) is clearly *after* the "war was raging."
 
> > However, during the war we DID NOT sent any aircraft over Baghdad until
> > the air defense system was taken down. And that includes the F-117.  We
> > took it down with some very neat tricks prior to the war starting.
> 
> Your definition as to when the "war" officially started and ended is
> amusing, especially since you acknowledge attacks that take place both
> before and after.  I believe James Gariss's reply was accurate, based
> on the content of your original post.

True :-)  I guess it would be better put "the first actions of the
war were..."  Still, there were special ops that happened before the
live on CNN bagdad airshow started.

- -Merrick

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 17:01:06 -0700 (MST)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

 
>   2.  What I've always wondered about is why there isn't a spinal version
>       of the laser turret for ships which are manuverable to to use it.

There is.  It's been named (in TNE) the "laser lance."  In CT it was
just a laser without the turret.

>       After all, the weapon systems and propulsion systems on a fighter
>       are going to be the primary consumers of space and mass, so it
>       shouldn't be a big concern to the fighter pilot if he has to 
>       shoot in the direction he's moving.  Of course I'm assuming that the
>       extra benefit of the spinal style laser weapons would be increased
>       damage potential.
 
Unfortunately, the design rules for lasers in FFS (the basis for
SSDS and QSDS) has a very small penalty for the steering glop for a
laser.  As a result, non-steerable lasers are kinda pointless.

I have played spinal weapons such that they has a bad modifier on
attacks made while their own ship is evading.  Assuming the concept
of Agility is added to a better combat system, you might subtract
Agility from your evasion Gs and use that as a - DM on the to-hit
task.  That way more agile ships are better with a spinal mount
(then trow a PAW on a large-ish "fighter."  :-)

- -Merrick

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 00:11:34 +0000
From: Garry Ward <Garry.E.Ward@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Not fighters, missile boats

At 03:05 PM 4/5/97 +0000, you wrote:
>snip
>
>The first thing i designed with QSDS was the Assault Scout. It was
>designed to be basicaly a fighter with j-drive.  I took the basic
>Scout/Courier, added 6g plates and mounted a Military Laser (for the
>+4FC mod).  These babies rock.  I have done combat scenarios with a
>small squad of these things against small capitals around 2000Td and
>less and found how effective they were.  Not bad, they gave the
>destoryer a run for its money, but the destoryer managed to disable a
>few with missiles and lasers.  Mind you I only threw 5 Assault Scouts at
>the thing, more of these scouts could prolly disable or destory it.
>
>The Assault Bomber design added 2 Missile barbettes.  It's cool to see
>capitals waste lasers on missiles, so that when the Scouts come in the
>capital has nothing left to fire on them with.
>
><snip>
>
>I will contine building fighters just to see what can be done with a
>small hull. :)
>-- 
>Commander X
>(cmdrx@magicnet.net <or> bprankard@theiia.org)
>Creator, Maintainor, and Webmeister of "Planet X"
>(www.magicnet.net/~cmdrx)
>
Bingo! This is what I envision Cleon's designers doing. Taking an existing
hull, using the newer Fusion+ power plants to release space for expanded
weapons and sensor suites.

Now, how much bigger a punch could you pack into this baby if you assumed
the crew was only on board for 18-36 hours, max, at a time?

Garry

 

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 18:27:25 -0600
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)

At 11:50 AM 4/5/97 +0000, twolf@unix.tfs.net wrote:
>> In mail you write:
>> 
>> > I don't know how useful it would be, but I know I wouldn't want to
>> > be anywhere near that sitting duck errr AWACS ship when it lights
>> > up it's active sensors....then _everything_ will see it, unless
>> > you're also positing that (like our AWACS aircraft) they also have
>> > significant jamming capability.
>> 
>> Trouble is, you *can't* "jam" IR. Well you can put out "flares", but
>> sensors can easily ignore ones that aren't radiating at the "right"
>> wavelengths/intensities.
>>
>No you don't "Jam"  IR, you "Mask" it.  At least that is what we do 
>at TL8.
>

Yes that the one the three type of IR electronic warfare that we have
today. Go look in Janes All The Worlds Aircraft, you should find a rather
large section covering EW gear on aircraft, alot of the gear specifically
deals with IR EW pods.

>Everyone seems to forget, once you make a tech advance in one area, 
>someone comes up with a counter or a counter counter measure to 
>negate or limit the benefits of the advance.
>

Another good rule is if it can be detected or emitted it can subject to EW.
Just because you don't believe it is possible to EW IR, does not make it so.

>Just because the limited ship combat systems for traveller don't 
>address it doesn't mean that there wouldn't be ECM and ECCM to help 
>ships avoid detection at higher tech levels.
>

Yes very true that has always been a leak point in traveller, the real
winner in high tech military vehicle engagements is the one that has the
EW/ECCM edge.


- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1142
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Sunday, April 6 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1143



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)
Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters
Re: KBv2.0
A look at the new Babylon 5 RPG Task system [LONG]
Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters
Re: Fighters
Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)
Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters
Energy Propagation For Sensors(Long)
Range Calculations Errors For Sensors

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 19:40:18 -0500
From: James Garriss <jpg@langley.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)

At 05:06 PM 4/4/97 -0700, you wrote:
>> Some people have argued that they couldnt carry the firepower to effect a
>> Battleship.  I disagree.  Stick a fusion bomb or Fission torpedo on these
>> babies (the equavilent to a Torpedo) and they could wreck havoc on any
>> heavily armoured vessel.
>
>True enough.  But then why bother bringing the fighter?  Just shoot
>the smaller, harder to hit missile.

Someone good at game-design help me out.  Isn't the answer to "why bring
the fighter" *oney*?  I would think missiles consume some sort of fuel.
The farther away the missiles are fired, the more fuel they need, the
greater their comm requirements (or the better their sensors have to be),
and the bigger their housing.  All of these cost money.  Right?


>Compare:
>
>Aircraft		Space_fighter
>----------		--------------
>Cheap (kinda)		Cheap (kinda)
>Faster than ships	Not faster than ships
>can sink a ship		Can kill a small ship
>ship-like sensors	carries much less capable sensors

I'm not disagreeing, just curious.  Why is the game designed such that
smaller ships (ie fighters) carry "much less capable sensors"?


 James Garriss                          System Engineer, MITRE               
 jpg@langley.mitre.org          http://www.cs.odu.edu/~garriss      

Unix csh/sh command:
% If I had a ( for every $ the Congress spent, what would I have?
Too many ('s.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 19:48:40 -0700
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors

At 03:28 pm 04/05/97 -0700, you wrote:
>David J. Golden wrote:
>> 
>>         Sure, it wouldn't matter for combat targetting. But it'll make it
>> difficult to board, because you CAN'T perfectly match my course if I'm
>> changing. And that was the whole point of the discussion (see the Subject:
>> Boarding Action). As long as I can rotate or translate my ship, it's going
>> to make it harder for anybody to latch on. Not impossible, depending on how
>> much linear/rotational acceleration I can put out. But harder.
>
>This was my point from the beginning. That's why you (as the pirate)
>want either the computer/pilot or power plant disabled. That way
>the steering jets aren't working.

	Hey! We're on the same side! Where did that guy go we were arguing with ...
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 19:57:14 -0700
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

At 05:24 pm 04/05/97 -0600, you wrote:
>To continue the thread of why fighters should be effective, there
>  are some important things to consider:
>
>  1.  Just because the time consumed in one game turn is 10 minutes,
>      doesn't mean that characters are only performing actions which
>      last for 10 minutes.  If a ship manages to board another, and
>      you end up trying to conduct combat simultaneously on the two
>      scales, it is entirely possible that the entire boarding action
>      will be finished in one or two starship combat turns.

	What do boarding actions have to do with fighters? (Your purpose,
according to the top sentence).

>  2.  What I've always wondered about is why there isn't a spinal version
>      of the laser turret for ships which are manuverable to to use it.
>      After all, the weapon systems and propulsion systems on a fighter
>      are going to be the primary consumers of space and mass, so it
>      shouldn't be a big concern to the fighter pilot if he has to 
>      shoot in the direction he's moving.  Of course I'm assuming that the
>      extra benefit of the spinal style laser weapons would be increased
>      damage potential.
>
>      I mean, if your in a 10 ton fighter, you really don't care about
>      having a weapon which can rotate to fire, simply because you should
>      be able to turn your ship around and shoot back fairly easily
>      (or possibly even just do a 180 and bring your weapon to bear).
>
>      Does anyone know if FF&S or any of the more recent ship design
>      systems support this idea?

	Yes. There's no real reason you can't have a large fixed laser. However,
there are limits on the maximum power of lasers.

>  3.  Its been awhile since I've played a starship combat, but given
>      the relatively large defensive DMs for the TL15 fighter in
>      the MegaTraveller naval book (I forget the name, but its the one
>      with all the capital ships in it), the fighters should be fairly
>      survivable.

	Most of the discussion against fighters has been based on ab-initio
analysis, done by people with some impressive technical knowledge to back
them up. Irregardless of what MT said, there are two points that kill
fighters:

	- You really can't hide a fighters. Even now, NORAD admits to being able
to track MARBLE sized objects between here and the moon. That's just what
they admit to. Now you throw in the power plant, and the drive, and you
cannot hide a fighter. The big ship will see you.

	- Lasers are highly accuracte lightspeed weapons. If the big ship sees
you, it will hit you, especially once you get within a few lightseconds.
Big ships carry big lasers, so a hit is a kill. See the previous bullet
about sensors.

>  4.  Maybe I've just been watching Babylon 5 and other shows too often,
>      but it seems to me that a small carrier with 5 to 10 fighters
>      should be more effective than the equivalent SDB in performing routine
>      patrols.  Especially if your concern is mostly with dealing with
>      smaller ship (i.e. 500 tons or less).
>
>      Then again, the approach to fighter carriers which don't have
>      internal landing bays would be maybe cheap enough to allow effective
>      fighter carriers too.

	Again, trying to analyze the physics of space combat based on either TV
shows, or old WWII movies will completely mislead you. Those TV shows were
created to show off the special effects wizards capabilities, and the guys
writing the scripts watched old WWII movies too. Babylon-5 style fighters
in Traveller would require immensely more powerful weapons available to
small ships.

	You can, of course, create a combat system that ignores physics. In that
combat system you can set it up so that fighters can take on big ships. But
if I'm going to play fantasy, I'll play with elves and magic. When I'm
playing science fiction, I do want science to be considered.
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 19:12:18 -0800
From: rdhough@orca.bc.ca (Richard Hough)
Subject: Re: KBv2.0

Here is another ruling I have been using with the KBv2.0 task system:

For Jack of All Trades skill the target number is the controlling
characteristic plus the JoAT skill level (NOT the tripled JoAT experience).
The existing rules make JoAT the best skill in the game by far, with this
ruling JoAT is more balanced.

- --
Richard Hough
rdhough@orca.bc.ca

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 04:30:14 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: A look at the new Babylon 5 RPG Task system [LONG]

I thought I'd give those people on the list-- that aren't involved in
the Fighters vs. Capital Ships discussions over on TML-- something
else to digest for a change :)

I picked up the new Babylon 5 RPG the other day and thought it might
be interesting to share the task system used in "The Babylon Project"
(or "TBP").

There are a number of similarities between the T4 and TBP task
systems.  Both systems use six-sided dice (TBP using only two dice),
both use an "Attribute + Skill" method of determining character
ability, and both use different levels of difficulty (TBP uses target
numbers instead of T4's variable-number-of-dice).  Both systems have
the ability to determine critical successes or failures, and TBP goes
the extra distance by offering multiple levels of success or failure
(including "criticals").  TBP also offers two additional task results
that are not *directly* linked to the attempted task at hand.  I will
try to explain.

Like T4, TBP uses "Attribute + Skill" to determine the general
competence of each skill posession by the character.  The result of
the sum is known in TBP as that character's "Ability" at that task.
TBP uses attributes that range from 1 to 9, and skills that range from
0 to 5 (characters can also have one or more skill "Specialties",
which give a further bonus of +2 to that skill).  All skills have
recommended attributes with which they are considered most
appropriately associated (these associations are not written in stone,
however).  Regardless of whether you play T4 using "Attribute +
Skill", "Attribute + (Skill x 3)", or whatever, the similarity between
the two task systems will become obvious in a moment.  This fact also
allows easy conversion to Traveller, regardless of which (un)official
task system you are now using.

TBP uses multiple levels of difficulty, just like T4.  Instead of
declaring a variable number of dice to be rolled at each difficulty
level, however, TBP uses fixed numerical target numbers as follows:

  Difficulty        Target
    Rating          Number
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
Trivial                2
Easy                   3
Basic                  5
Average                7
Tricky                 9
Difficult             11
Very Difficult        15
Next to Impossible    17
Miraculous            25

This list can easily be toned down to six entries for T4.  The high
number of defined difficulty ratings is necessary for TBP's ranged
combat rules (and possibly others that I haven't read yet :)  During
contested skills between two individuals (such as an arm wrestling
match) don't bother assigning a Difficulty Rating.  Instead, simply
have everyone involved make a roll, with the one rolling highest
declared the winner.  TBP has additional rules for team work and
complex/time consuming tasks but I won't get into those rules.

The character's "Ability" is then modified using what TBP calls a
"Random Modifier" (ranging from -5 to +5) as follows...

Each player has two six-sided dice of different colours.  Once die is
considered "Positive" (traditionally green) while the other is
"Negative" (traditionally red).  Both are rolled together, and the die
with the _lower_face_value_ becomes the "Random Modifier".

=46or example: a Positive "6" and a Negative "2" would result in a
Random Modifier of -2, while a Positive "1" and a Negative "2" would
result in a Random Modifier of +1.  Identical die results generate a
Random Modifier of 0 (exception: "box cars" or "snake eyes" are
considered unique results-- "Benefits" and "Setbacks", respectively).

The final total-- Attribute + Skill + Specialty (if applicable) +
Random Modifier-- is then compared to the assigned Difficulty Rating
on following chart:

"Ability" Test Result     Degree of Sucess/Failure
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
roll failed by 6 or more    Critical Failure
roll failed by 4 or 5       Significant Failure
roll failed by 2 or 3       Normal Failure
roll failed by 1            Marginal Failure
roll made by 0 or 1         Marginal Success
roll made by 2 or 3         Normal Success
roll made by 4 or 5         Significant Success
roll made by 6 or more      Critical Success

These degrees of success or failure have rough guidelines for a TBP
referee to follow, but they can easily be reduced to a simple "roll
failed by 5" or "roll made by 5" result to represent Critical Failures
or Successes in Traveller.

The "box cars" and "snake-eyes" results that I mentioned earlier are
used in TBP to represent unpredictable events-- not DIRECTLY related
to the actual task test-- that might "benefit" or "set back" the
character performing the task.  Since these two dice results are still
treated as a Random Modifier of "0", a Setback result could still be a
success (and vice versa).

=46or example: a character attempting to pick a mechanical lock could
normally roll a Critical Success or Failure using any of the T4 task
system rules, resulting in the lock being picked far faster than
normal or possibly being damaged, depending on the Critical result.
In TBP, a Benefit result ("box cars") might indicate the inadvertent
discovery of a key under the doormat, while a Setback ("snake eyes")
could represent a local security guard that just happened to arrive on
the scene.  These could be considered "optional" task results for
Traveller.

Admittedly, this system would need a bit of adjustment to satisfy some
of those people that dislike the current T4 task system (myself
included).  Things like adopting a multiplier of two or three to all
Traveller skills so attributes don't dominate the game (TBP has over
twice as many calculated and derived attributes as T4), or simplifying
the two tables I have included above come to mind.

Comments?

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

One other note regarding TBP: it doesn't contain rules for space
combat.  Apparently a boxed boardgame does exist (by "Agents of
Gaming"), but it does not use vectored movement.  However, a website
*does* exist that converts the existing movement rules into a
vector-based system-- while still using a hex map.  It can be found
at:

http://www.wizard.net/~caw/vms.htm



James W. Lindsay    Vancouver, British Columbia

"Ack! Icky plptht TAZ grunga yeek... PLPTHT!!!"
                             -Tasmanian Devil

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 23:15:15 -0600
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

At 07:57 PM 4/5/97 -0700, "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net> wrote:
>	Most of the discussion against fighters has been based on ab-initio
>analysis, done by people with some impressive technical knowledge to back
>them up. Irregardless of what MT said, there are two points that kill
>fighters:
>
>	- You really can't hide a fighters. Even now, NORAD admits to being able
>to track MARBLE sized objects between here and the moon. That's just what
>they admit to. Now you throw in the power plant, and the drive, and you
>cannot hide a fighter. The big ship will see you.
>

Well If NORAD say so <G>, is that a marble sized using how big of a sensor
antenna array under close to ideal conditions? Maybe one those huge phased
array monsters that they have, by the way was it a active or passive
sensor? <G>

>	- Lasers are highly accuracte lightspeed weapons. If the big ship sees
>you, it will hit you, especially once you get within a few lightseconds.
>Big ships carry big lasers, so a hit is a kill. See the previous bullet
>about sensors.
>

The laser can only hit you accurately it the range calculation/measurement
was accurate enough. 

I remember way back when we were still in "man on the moon" phase of the US
space program, one of the missions left a reflector on the moon. The
purpose so from down here dirtside could bounce a laser beam off the
reflector and back to the earth. End result was the prior calculated
distance to the moon was off more than they had suspected. I am sure that
some of the WAG's on this list can provide more details. But it does show
that passive sensor range calcs are less accurate than active sensor range
calcs.

At one light second (300,000,000 meters) with a range calc accuracy of say
0.000001 you would have a range deviation of + or - 300 meters. With that
kind of accuracy the target would not have to evade.

>
>	Again, trying to analyze the physics of space combat based on either TV
>shows, or old WWII movies will completely mislead you. Those TV shows were
>created to show off the special effects wizards capabilities, and the guys
>writing the scripts watched old WWII movies too. Babylon-5 style fighters
>in Traveller would require immensely more powerful weapons available to
>small ships.
>

Fighters can be effective against large warships but you can not use
missiles that cost fractions of megacredit and carry a single warhead. The
missile will not be small, it will not be cheap and will carry large
numbers of multiple warheads off nukes and KKM types. If a missile
traveling at 36g's, releases 10,000 warheads at say 30,000km from the
target, assuming the missile is armored enough to get past the PD stuff,
the target PD will not get it all, most of it will get to the target. By
the way some of the math inclined it the warheads are traveling at a
velocity of 36g's at 30,000km, how long will it take the warhead to reach
the target area? 

The chance to hit could be stated that a weapon with ROF of 10,000 firing
at the target. More than one hit is a certainty


- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 05:21:44 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Fighters

On Sat, 5 Apr 1997 16:54:36 -0700 (MST), you wrote:

> =20
> > > Err, sorry. Not during the war, only the last few times we attacked=
 =3D
> > him.
> >=20
> > Excuse me, but I think the war was still raging during "the last few
> > times we attacked him".
>=20
> Clinton has ordered such cruise missile attacks during his first
> term.  This (IMO) is clearly *after* the "war was raging."

IMO, wars consist of many battles, not the other way around.  Bad
diction, that was all :)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 05:21:42 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)

On Sat, 05 Apr 1997 19:40:18 -0500, you wrote:

> >True enough.  But then why bother bringing the fighter?  Just shoot
> >the smaller, harder to hit missile.
>=20
> Someone good at game-design help me out.  Isn't the answer to "why =
bring
> the fighter" *oney*?  I would think missiles consume some sort of fuel.
> The farther away the missiles are fired, the more fuel they need, the
> greater their comm requirements (or the better their sensors have to =
be),
> and the bigger their housing.  All of these cost money.  Right?

=46ighters, unfortunately, need fuel as well.  They also need a highly
specialized tender/carrier.  Missiles, OTOH, can be fired from any
ship mounting (or capable of mounting) a missile turret.

If it really is a matter of money, though, I was wondering... why
bother with expensive, expendable missiles at all?  After all, it is
much "cheaper" to just use lasers (they don't cost MCr2 per shot, and
can't be shot down).  Of course, missiles do have there advantages,
but they are still expensive.  A ship that depends primarily on
missiles could conceivably fire the monetary equivalent of an entire
ship each combat round :)

> >ship-like sensors	carries much less capable sensors
>=20
> I'm not disagreeing, just curious.  Why is the game designed such that
> smaller ships (ie fighters) carry "much less capable sensors"?

I think it has something to do with antenna size (bigger ships can
mount bigger antennas), although I could be wrong.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 05:21:45 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

On Sat, 05 Apr 1997 19:57:14 -0700, you wrote:

> At 05:24 pm 04/05/97 -0600, you wrote:
>=20
> >      I mean, if your in a 10 ton fighter, you really don't care about
> >      having a weapon which can rotate to fire, simply because you =
should
> >      be able to turn your ship around and shoot back fairly easily
> >      (or possibly even just do a 180 and bring your weapon to bear).
> >
> >      Does anyone know if FF&S or any of the more recent ship design
> >      systems support this idea?
>=20
> 	Yes. There's no real reason you can't have a large fixed laser. =
However,
> there are limits on the maximum power of lasers.

Besides, the extra space freed up by not having all of the components
that would aim your laser really wouldn't add up to much.  You might
be able to up the powerplant output (via a larger powerplant) and
install more powerful laser...

Of all shows, S:AAB had fighters with turreted weaponry.  It was
depicted well in the television show, even though the rest of the
flight physics stunk.

> 	- You really can't hide a fighters. Even now, NORAD admits to being =
able
> to track MARBLE sized objects between here and the moon. That's just =
what
> they admit to. Now you throw in the power plant, and the drive, and you
> cannot hide a fighter. The big ship will see you.

So the next time (next time?) I lose my marbles on a trip to the dark
side of the moon, I'm supposed to call NORAD?  Gotcha.

> 	Again, trying to analyze the physics of space combat based on either =
TV
> shows, or old WWII movies will completely mislead you. Those TV shows =
were
> created to show off the special effects wizards capabilities, and the =
guys
> writing the scripts watched old WWII movies too. Babylon-5 style =
fighters
> in Traveller would require immensely more powerful weapons available to
> small ships.

Babylon 5 is a good start however, with space combat scenes that use
Real World(tm) physics (ie: properly vectored movement).  They could
also spread things out so that the combatants are tens of thousands of
kilometres apart, but that would be pretty boring to watch (although
rendering time would be sped up immensely :)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 23:40:01 -0600
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Energy Propagation For Sensors(Long)

Gentle Beings


The sensors in Traveller have several issues that need to be pointed
out.


Just because the target is radiating energy of specific level does not
mean that all of that radiating energy level is will be usable by
sensors.


The following is figures derived from technical manuals relating to
energy propagation in space from a isotropic radiator. The formulae used
are:


Surface Area of radiated sphere= 4*pi*r^2

Watts per square meter of radiated sphere's surface=P/4*pi*r^2


I used watts rather than field strength levels because I feel that more
people would better understand watts per square meter than volts per
square meter.


formulae are from "Television Engineering Handbook" by K. Blair Benson,
copyright 1986. Chapter 6 Propagation, section 6.2 Propagation In Free
Space, page 6.3


"For the simplest case propagation in space, namely that of uniform
radiation in all directions from a point source, or isotropic radiator,
it is useful to consider the analogy to point of light. The radiant
energy passes with uniform intensity through all portions of an imaginary
spherical surface located at a radius <italic>r </italic>from the
source."


"From the above formulas it can be seen that for free space:(1) the
radiation intensity in watts per square meter is proportional to the
radiated power and inversely proportional to the square of the radius or
distance from the radiator; (2) the electric field strength is
proportional to square root of the radiated power and inversely
proportional to the distance from the radiator."


P=total power radiated

radius=distance


P=1,000,000,000 watts or 1 GigaWatt


milli=10^-3

micro=10^-6

nano =10^-9

pico =10^-12

femto=10^-15

atto =10^-18



Distance     Range                  Watts per Square Meter

In Km        In Hexes   milli  micro   nano   pico   femto   atto

3,000        0.1        0.01   9       8,842

30,000       1          0.00   0.09    88.42

60,000       2          0.00   0.02    22.10

90,000       3          0.00   0.01    9.82

120,000      4          0.00   0.01    5.53

150,000      5          0.00   0.00    3.54   pico      

300,000      10         0.00   0.00    0.88   884

330,000      11         0.00   0.00    0.73   731

360,000      12         0.00   0.00    0.61   614

390,000      13         0.00   0.00    0.52   523

420,000      14         0.00   0.00    0.45   451

600,000      20         0.00   0.00    0.22   221

900,000      30         0.00   0.00    0.10   98

1,200,000    40         0.00   0.00    0.06   55

1,500,000    50         0.00   0.00    0.04   35

1,800,000    60         0.00   0.00    0.02   25

2,100,000    70         0.00   0.00    0.02   18

2,400,000    80         0.00   0.00    0.01   14

2,700,000    90         0.00   0.00    0.01   11     femto

3,000,000    100        0.00   0.00    0.01   9      8,842

30,000,000   1,000      0.00   0.00    0.00   0.09   88.42   atto  

300,000,000  10,000     0.00   0.00    0.00   0.00   0.88    884


We will also say that for this TL X passive sensor to detect the
radiating signal the signal level must be greater than .5 microwatts.


As you can see the value of watts per square meter will not be larger
enough, so I add in the parabolic reflector antenna signal focusing
properties.


I will be using the 100 meter diameter parabolic reflector(the
information on designing parabolic reflectors I no longer have access to
so I am making hopefully close approximation).


Using the 100 meter PR I get the following values:

Values are in microwatts per square meter

Range in Hexes(30,000km each) 

1      2     3     4     5     10    20    30   40    50     60

1,388  347   154   86    55    38    3     1    0.87  0.56   0.39


So up to a range of 50 hexes(1,500,000km) the passive sensor with PR
antenna can detect the target, beyond that nothing.


Using a lower watt rating for the signal source get very interesting


Using a 1Megawatt radiating source and the same signal detection levels
ie .5 nanowatts per square meter , a 100 meter PR receiving antenna


Values are in microwatts per square meter

Range in Hexes(30,000km each) 

1      2     3     4     5     

1.39   0.35  0.15  0.09  0.06

In this example the sensor can only detect a 1Mw radiating source at one
hex.


Using a 1 Kilowatt or lower radiating source will not be detectable by
the sensor.


Now if we try the same method with a active sensor it gets more
complicated to make it very simple you would need a 1Gigawatt Maser
tightbeam and a 100 meter PR receiving antenna and you would only be able
to detect a target out to 25 hexes (approx.). Illustrating that passive
sensors have twice the detection ability of active with the same
resources(ie power, antenna etc).








- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|

Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 

Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions

- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 00:12:29 -0600
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors

Gentle Beings

The following will show the range measurement accuracy effects at different
ranges for Traveller

All range measurements have plus or minus values that is "science" not
fiction.

Error1=0.000001
Error2=0.0000001
Error3=0.00000001
Error4=0.000000001
Error5=0.0000000001

Range     plus or minus in meters
In Hexes  Error1   Error2   Error3   Error4   Error5
0.1       3        .3       .03      .003     .0003
1         30       3        .3       .03      .003
2         60       6        .6       .06      .006
3         90       9        .9       .09      .009
4         120      12       1.2      .12      .012
5         150      15       1.5      .15      .015
6         180      18       1.8      .18      .018
7         210      21       2.1      .21      .021
8         240      24       2.4      .24      .024
9         270      27       2.7      .27      .027
10        300      30       3        .3       .03
11        330      33       3.3      .33      .033
12        360      36       3.6      .36      .036
13        390      39       3.9      .39      .039
14        420      42       4.2      .42      .042
15        450      45       4.5      .45      .045
16        480      48       4.8      .48      .048
17        510      51       5.1      .51      .051
18        540      54       5.4      .54      .054
19        570      57       5.7      .57      .057
20        600      60       6        .6       .06
30        900      90       9        .9       .09
40        1,200    120      12       1.2      .012
50        1,500    150      15       1.5      .015
60        1,800    180      18       1.8      .018
70        2,100    210      21       2.1      .021
80        2,400    240      24       2.4      .024
90        2,700    270      27       2.7      .027
100       3,000    300      30       3        .03

This show the amount or error at varous range.

I would say that error1 values could be used for passive sensors and error2
values could be used for active sensors.
- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1143
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Sunday, April 6 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1144



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors 
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors 
Traveller Question: Material Costs
Re: Traveller Question: Material Costs
[none]
Re: A look at the new Babylon 5 RPG Task system [LONG]
Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters
Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters and missiles too!
Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters
Re: KBv2.0
Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 22:19:19 -0800
From: George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com>
Subject: Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors 

Almost right.  Done properly, pulse laser rangefinding can have
fixed error out to arbitrary distance in a vaccum.  The error is
primarily in measuring the pulse travel time, which given stable
oscillators is +- a very small value (say, 1E-6 sec or so) out to
time ranges exceeding 10s with existing man-portable hardware.  
So, well enough designed active sensor systems will have very
precise and accurate distance measurement at all space combat ranges.
It's a lot harder to do that precisely with radars (longer wavelengths)
but still quite precise.

Passive sensors, on the other hand, are much less accurate than any
of your given examples.  You don't really get distance except indirectly
(via matching a course to the angular motion; matching signature size
with known target signature; with multiple sensors, triangulation)
with passive sensors.


- -george william herbert
Retro Aerospace
gherbert@crl.com

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 00:36:25 -0600
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

At 03:49 AM 4/5/97 PST, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:
>In mail you write:
>
>> Well rotating your ship to bring your batteries to bear has its mostly good
>> points but from the sensor end it sucks.
>>
>> Example: a 400 dt ship with a large inflatable PEMS array of >100m
>> diameter. In this example the dish array do not rotate by it's own device.
>
>Anybody using an inflatable array during combat, or even during
>*manuevering* is asking for trouble.
>
>> The dish is most sensitive/accurate when the incoming signal source is
>> perpendicular to the arrays axises. The array is pointing dead ahead ie 0
>> degree's in all axises that matter/count. By rotating the ship the dish
>> array will be no longer in the most efficient/sensitive/accurate position.
>
>Everything after this makes *no* sense whatsoever. Try restating it in
>a manner that makes sense without diagrams, ok?
>

Well it looks you did make some sense of it <G>.

>Let's define the Z axis as the one you "point" at a source to get
>maximum signal. The X and Y axes are at right angles to this, and to
>each other. Rotating the antenna about the Z axis should have *no*
>effect upon the signal strength. Well, it could have an effect if both
>the signal *and* the sensor are sensitive to polarization.
>

Agreed.

>So, if the Z axis is aligned parallel to the ship's rotational axis,
>then your sensor is pointing "fore" or "aft" and shouldn't be affected
>by the rotation. But you can't see anything in the opposite direction,
>and probably can't see much at right angles to the aiming direction
>either. 
>

Again I agree.

>If the Z-axis is at an angle to the ship's rotational axis, then it is
>sweeping out the surface of a cone. Anything on the surface of that
>cone is at maximum sensitivity. The farther off the surface of the cone
>the signal is the lower the received signal. But note that you get
>*some* signal from more of the sky than if you weren't rotating the
>antenna. 
>

Yes to this I agree.

>Assuming a 45 degree cone of "decent" sensitivity, you can get "100%"
>coverage from only *two* arrays by rotating the ship. Point one 45
>degrees off the "fore" end of the ship's rotational axis. Point the
>other 45 degrees off the aft end. I'd recommend putting them on
>opposite sides of the ship. Your worst coverage will be directly
>ahead, directly behind and at *exactly* right angles to the ship's
>rotational axis. 
>
>If you can get some signal at *more* than 45 degrees "off axis", then
>you have overlapping coverage. 
>
>*Without* rotating the ship, all you get is the 45 degree (or better)
>cone of the arrays.
>
>The only thing that large arrays seem to do as far as I can see is make
>an argument for higher rates of spin!
>
>And in any case, large arrays like this aren't needed at *combat*
>ranges. 
>

Well what do you define at "combat" ranges?
Without the large (greater than 100 meters) antenna you do not have a
decent chance of tracking/detecting incoming missiles.

A 100 meter antenna is not that large in Traveller you can have 800 meter
antennae  .

>> A better use would be for the main batteries to be mounted such a way that
>> they can all bear upon targets directly in the front firing arc.
>
>Sorry, but you are again *assuming* that "front" and "direction of
>travel" mean the same thing. They *don't*. Depending on the manuever
>being performed, the nose of the ship may be pointed at *any* angle to
>the direction of travel.
>

Well you are assuming what I meant, the best way to mount batteries is so
they can bear on the target. Yes maneuvering can effect which batteries can
brought to bear but it also will effect how well you can track/detect the
target.

>The traditional 100 ton Scout is built that way. The dorsal and ventral
>turrets can each cover targets ahead, behind, and to port or starboard.
>But only *one* can cover a target that isn't in the same "plane" as the
>Scout (ie above or below). 
>

Hmmm....the traditional 100 ton scout only has one turret by CT/MT.

>But if you put the scout into a roll, then both turrets can attack. And
>damage doesn't get concentrated on a single side of the ship.
>

Yes but where is sensor array during this roll, or yaw or pitch.

If I have a ship firing two batteries at the rolling scout and the dorsal
side is towards me when I hit the rolling ship only that side is damaged.
Even rolling, the damage will cluster to either the dorsal or ventral
sides, the edges will seldom get hit.

>If you aren't going to manuever ata all (hah!) then you could try
>orienting your ship so that both turrets can cover the target. But what
>happens when there are *two* targets, and they aren't positioned so
>that you can do that with both of them? (Actually, with two, you can,
>but it is tricky, with 3 it's impossible unless they are all in the
>same "plane" as you)
>

Very much so


- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 00:47:58 -0600
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors 

At 10:19 PM 4/5/97 -0800, George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com> wrote:
>
>Almost right.  Done properly, pulse laser rangefinding can have
>fixed error out to arbitrary distance in a vaccum.  The error is
>primarily in measuring the pulse travel time, which given stable
>oscillators is +- a very small value (say, 1E-6 sec or so) out to
>time ranges exceeding 10s with existing man-portable hardware.  
>So, well enough designed active sensor systems will have very
>precise and accurate distance measurement at all space combat ranges.
>It's a lot harder to do that precisely with radars (longer wavelengths)
>but still quite precise.
>

Ok then that would mean that Error1 value would be correct for active laser
sensors?

By the way do you have the knowledge/tools to figure out at a range of 10
hexes, at 100 meter sphere, how big would your receiving antenna array have
to be. Also how much power/watts would the laser have to be?

>Passive sensors, on the other hand, are much less accurate than any
>of your given examples.  You don't really get distance except indirectly
>(via matching a course to the angular motion; matching signature size
>with known target signature; with multiple sensors, triangulation)
>with passive sensors.
>

Well I was trying to be generous<G>. I also agree about how distance is
figured in passive sensors. 

In general military use the passive sensors let you know something is there
and the active one give the information/data for a Fire Control Solution.

In current day submarines the passive sonar detects the target but just
before firing the weapon the subs try and active ping to make weapon
placement even better.


- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 97 01:04:15 -0600
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Traveller Question: Material Costs

Hey,

I was tinkering with ship design this weekend and ran into an errata
concerning the price/cost of materials.  In CSC Superdense is listed as
0.140Mcr/M^3, but in both Starships and FFS SD is listed as 0.0140MCr/M^3!
In fact, all the material costs are 10 times higher in CSC.  

If CSC is wrong, for example, we'd shave over 50KCr off the cost of a
speeder like the Rolen Politesse and get the price down to near the one
given in T4. And this would be a multi-million Credit difference in the
cost of starships too!

So, officially, which is the errata?  Is CSC 10 times too expensive, or are
Starships and FFS in error? 


Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 01:31:13 -0600
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Traveller Question: Material Costs

At 01:04 AM 4/6/97 -0600, eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch) wrote:
>Hey,
>
>I was tinkering with ship design this weekend and ran into an errata
>concerning the price/cost of materials.  In CSC Superdense is listed as
>0.140Mcr/M^3, but in both Starships and FFS SD is listed as 0.0140MCr/M^3!
>In fact, all the material costs are 10 times higher in CSC.  
>
>If CSC is wrong, for example, we'd shave over 50KCr off the cost of a
>speeder like the Rolen Politesse and get the price down to near the one
>given in T4. And this would be a multi-million Credit difference in the
>cost of starships too!
>
>So, officially, which is the errata?  Is CSC 10 times too expensive, or are
>Starships and FFS in error? 
>
Ok looks like you found some more errata I will forward it on to the right
people. How did I miss that one.


- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 23:45:36 -0800
From: Mike Linsenmayer <mike-l@sure.net>
Subject: [none]

Current Traveller Items For sale and Bid

Bid Descriptions:



.OPEN: No bids currently placed for item

.$10.00: Current bid amount

.GOING: No bid on item for last 2 days

.GOING GOING: No bid on item for last 4 days

.SOLD: No bid on item for last 6 days, Item Sold, No More bids accepted







Classes of condition:



.MINT: Like New

.VERY GOOD: No stains or writing, some usage though

.GOOD: Some usage, minor notes etc. or written inside etc.

.FAIR: Worn, stained etc. Written in etc.

.WORN: Well Used!






- ------------------------------------------------------------------------


TRAVELLER


- ------------------------------------------------------------------------


1.OPEN:GDW: FIRST THREE BLACK BOOKS (1-3) Print 1 (1977), VERY GOOD
 2.$12.00 (bd1-4,5):FASA: ADVENTURE CLASS SHIPS, WORN to FAIR, volumes =
one and two. Booklets (4 total), 18 Ship plans=20
3.OPEN:FASA: THE FCI CONSUMER GUIDE, FAIR=20
4.$5.00 GOING(bd4-4,4):FASA: THE LEGEND OF THE SKY RAIDERS, FAIR=20
5.$5.00 GOING(bd4-4,4):FASA: THE TRAIL OF THE SKY RAIDERS, WORN
 6.$5.00 GOING(bd4-4,4):FASA: FATE OF THE SKY RAIDERS, FAIR to GOOD=20
7.OPEN:GDW: Intro Adventure INTRODUCTORY ADVENTURE,=20
8.OPEN:GDW: Book 4 MERCENARY, FAIR=20
9.OPEN:GDW: Book 4 MERCENARY, MINT=20
0.OPEN:GDW: Book 5 HIGH GUARD, MINT, Slight crease in lower right corner
 11.OPEN:GDW: Book 5 HIGH GUARD, VERY GOOD=20
12.OPEN:GDW: Book 6 SCOUTS, WORN=20
13.OPEN:GDW: Book 7 MERCHANT PRINCE, VERY GOOD=20
14.$10.00 (bd8-4,4):GDW: Book 8 ROBOTS, MINT, Slight crease in lower =
right corner=20
15.OPEN:GDW: STRIKER BOOKS 1 through 3, VERY GOOD=20
16.OPEN:GDW: Supplement 2 ANIMAL ENCOUNTERS, GOOD to VERY GOOD=20
17.OPEN:GDW: Supplement 4 CITIZENS OF THE IMPERIUM, FAIR=20
18.OPEN:GDW: Supplement 5 AZHANTI HIGH LIGHTNING, GOOD, No box or pop =
out pieces but maps are near mint and books are good to very good.=20
19.OPEN:GDW: Supplement 6 76 PATRONS, VERY GOOD
 20.OPEN:GDW: Supplement 7 TRADERS AND GUNBOATS, GOO D
 21.OPEN:GDW: Supplement 8 LIBRARY DATA, VERY GOOD=20
22.OPEN:GDW: Supplement 9 FIGHTING SHIPS, GOOD=20
23.$5.00 GOING(bd4-4,4):GDW: Supplement 12 FORMS AND CHARTS, GOOD to =
VERY GOOD=20
24.OPEN:GDW: Adventure 1 THE KINUNIR, VERY GOOD to MINT=20
25.OPEN:GDW: Adventure 2 RESEARCH STATION GAMMA, GOOD=20
26.$5.00 (bd8-4,4):GDW: Adventure 3 TWILIGHT'S PEAK, GOOD to FAIR=20
27.OPEN:GDW: Adventure 4 LEVIATHAN, FAIR to WORN=20
28.OPEN:GDW: Adventure 6 EXPEDITION TO ZHODANE, GOOD=20
29.OPEN:GDW: Adventure 7 BROAD SWORD,=20
30.OPEN:GDW: Adventure 8 PRISON PLANET, GOOD to VERY GOOD=20
31.OPEN:GDW: Adventure 9 NOMADS OF THE WORLD OCEAN, VERY GOOD=20
32.OPEN:GDW: Adventure 10 SAFARI SHIP, GOOD to VERY GOOD
 33.OPEN:GDW: Adventure 11 MURDER ON ARCTURUS STATION, VERY GOOD
 34.$10.00 (bd7-4,5):GDW: Adventure 12 SECRET OF THE ANCIENTS, GOOD
 35.OPEN:GDW: Adventure 13 SIGNAL GK, VERY GOOD to MINT
 36.OPEN:GDW: Double Adventure 1 SHADOWS & ANNIC NOVA,=20
37.OPEN:GDW: Double Adventure 2 MISSION ON MITHRIL & ACROSS THE BRIGHT =
FACE, VERY GOOD
 38.OPEN:GDW: Double Adventure 3 DEATH STATION & ARGON GAMBIT, VERY GOOD =

39.$10.00 (bd7-4,5):GDW: Double Adventure 4 MAROONED & MAROONED ALONE, =
VERY GOOD=20
40.$10.00 (bd7-4,5): Double Adventure 5 CHAMAX PLAGUE & HORDE, VERY GOOD =

41.$10.00 (bd7-4,5): Double Adventure 6 NIGHT OF CONQUEST & DIVINE =
INTERVENTION, GOOD
 42.OPEN:GDW: Alien Module 1 ASLAN, GOOD=20
43.$4.00 (bd1-4,5):GDW: Alien Module 2 K'KREE, GOOD=20
44.$5.00 GOING(bd5-4,4):GDW: Alien Module 3 VARGR, GOOD to VERY GOOD
 45.OPEN:GDW: Alien Module 4 ZHODANI, VERY=20
46.OPEN:GDW: Alien Module 5 DROYNE, VERY=20
47.$5.00 GOING(bd5-4,4):GDW: Alien Module 6 SOLOMANI, GOOD to VERY GOOD
 48.$5.00 GOING(bd1-4,4):GDW: Alien Module 8 DARRIANS, VERY GOOD=20
49.$11.00 (bd1-4,5):DIGEST GROUP PUBLICATIONS: 101 ROBOTS, VERY GOOD=20
50.OPEN:GDW: ALIEN REALMS ADVENTURE, VERY GOOD to MINT=20
51.OPEN:GDW: STRIKER BOOKS 1 through 3, VERY GOOD, No box, loose.
 52.OPEN:GDW: THE BELTERS HANDBOOK, WORN, No box, loose
 53.OPEN:GDW: THE TRAVELLER ADVENTURE BOOK,=20
54.$2.00 (bd1-4,5):GDW: ORIGINAL REFEREE'S GAMING KIT, MINT
 55.$5.00 (bd8-4,4):GDW: THE SPINWARD MARCHES CAMPAIGN, GOOD to FAIR
 56.OPEN:GDW: TRAVELLER NEW ERA BOX SET, VERY GOOD (Books inside box are =
MINT)
 57.$4.00 GOING(bd1-4,4):GDW: ATLAS OF THE IMPERIUM, VERY WORN
 58.OPEN:GDW: BEST OF THE JOURNAL of the Travellers' aid society, # 1, =
1-4, VERY GOOD
 59.OPEN:GDW: JOURNAL of the Travellers' aid society, # 13, Hivers, VERY =
GOOD
 60.OPEN:GDW: JOURNAL of the Travellers' aid society, # 15, Azun, FAIR =
Cover Torn Off otherwise=20
61.OPEN:GDW: JOURNAL of the Travellers' aid society, # 17, Atmospheres, =
VERY GOOD
 62.OPEN:GDW: JOURNAL of the Travellers' aid society, # 20, Prologue, =
VERY GOOD=20
63.OPEN:GDW: CHALLENGE MAGAZINE , # 27, VERY GOOD=20
64.OPEN:GDW: CHALLENGE MAGAZINE , # 28, VERY GOOD=20
65.OPEN:GDW: CHALLENGE MAGAZINE , # 29, VERY GOOD to MINT
 66.OPEN:GDW: CHALLENGE MAGAZINE , # 30, MINT
 67.OPEN:GDW: CHALLENGE MAGAZINE , # 31, MINT
 68.OPEN:GDW: CHALLENGE MAGAZINE , # 32, GOOD
 69.OPEN:GDW: CHALLENGE MAGAZINE , # 36, VERY GOOD
 70.OPEN:GDW: CHALLENGE MAGAZINE , # 40, VERY GOOD=20
71.OPEN:GDW: CHALLENGE MAGAZINE , # 41, VERY GOOD
 72.OPEN:GDW: CHALLENGE MAGAZINE , # 44, GOOD to FAIR=20
73.OPEN:FASA: FAR TRAVELLER MAGAZINE, # 1, GOOD to FAIR=20
74.$10.00 GOING(bd6-4,4): FAR TRAVELLER MAGAZINE, # 2, MINT=20
75.$20.00 (bd7-4,5):DIGEST GROUP PUBLICATIONS: THE TRAVELLER DIGEST, # =
7, VERY GOOD
 76.$20.00 (bd7-4,5):DIGEST GROUP PUBLICATIONS: THE TRAVELLER DIGEST, # =
8, VERY=20
77.$20.00 (bd7-4,5):DIGEST GROUP PUBLICATIONS: THE TRAVELLER DIGEST, # =
10, VERY GOOD=20
78.$21.00 (bd1-4,5):DIGEST GROUP PUBLICATIONS: THE TRAVELLER DIGEST, # =
11, VERY GOOD
 79.OPEN:DIGEST GROUP PUBLICATIONS: THE TRAVELLER DIGEST, # 21, VERY =
GOOD Almost MINT
 80.OPEN:GDW: BOX GAME: TARSUS, FAIR, Missing box and some character =
cards=20
81.OPEN:GDW: INVASION EARTH BOX GAME, WORN=20
82.OPEN:GDW: SURVIVAL MARGIN, MINT, Slight crease in spine
 83.OPEN:JUDGES GUILD: 101 STARPORTS, VERY WORN=20
84.OPEN:JUDGES GUILD: TANCRED, GOOD, Some slight water stains on cover, =
inside very good.
 85.OPEN:JUDGES GUILD: DARKLING SHIP, GOOD, Some water spots on cover.=20


- ------------------------------------------------------------------------


TRAVELLER 2300


- ------------------------------------------------------------------------


1.OPEN:GDW: MISSION ARCTURUS, VERY GOOD to MINT
 2.OPEN:GDW: NYOTEKUNDU, VERY GOOD
 3.OPEN:GDW: BAYERN, VERY GOOD=20
4.OPEN:GDW: AURORE, GOOD=20
5.OPEN:GDW: KAFER SOURCE BOOK, VERY GOOD
 6.OPEN:GDW: EQUIPMENT GUIDE, VERY GOOD to MINT
 7.OPEN:GDW: EARTH/CYBERTECH SOURCE BOOK, MINT=20


- ------------------------------------------------------------------------


TSR GAME STUFF


- ------------------------------------------------------------------------


1.$22.00: (bd3-4,5)TSR: DUNGEONS & DRAGONS MANUAL (blue cover) Print 3 =
(1978),VERY GOOD to GOOD=20
2.OPEN:TSR: GAMMA WORLD MANUAL Print 3 (1980), VERY GOOD
 3.OPEN:TSR: GAMMA WORLD ADVENTURE 1, Legion of Gold Print 1(1981), GOOD =
to FAIR
 4.OPEN:TSR: DEITIES AND DEMIGODS Print 3 (1980), VERY GOOD, Should be =
MINT but when I first got it the was the rage to color in the pictures, =
so 7 are colored in.
 5.OPEN:TSR: DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE Print ? (from 1979), GOOD, Some =
writing.=20
6.OPEN:TSR: STAR FRONTIERS CAMPAIGN BOOK, GOOD Books 1 and 2=20
7.OPEN:TSR: STAR FRONTIERS ALPHA DAWN GAME RULES BOOK, GOOD Books 1 and =
2=20
8.OPEN:TSR: STAR FRONTIERS MISSION TO ALCAZZAR, FAIR 9.OPEN:TSR: STAR =
FRONTIERS 2010 ODYSSEY ADVENTURE, GOOD=20


- ------------------------------------------------------------------------


OTHER GAME STUFF


- ------------------------------------------------------------------------


1.OPEN:FASA: STAR TREK THE ROLE PLAYING GAME, GOOD, Would be very good =
or MINT if I had the original box and dice just the three manuals.=20
2.OPEN:AVALON HILL: SQUAD LEADER, WORN to FAIR=20
3.OPEN:JUDGES GUILD: RAVENS CRAG, WORN, Very detailed castle maps
 4.OPEN:FANTASY GAMES UNLIMITED: (Space Opera) SELDONS STARCRAFT 2, FAIR
 5.$3.00 GOING (bd1-4,4):WALLABY PRESS: STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE =
SHIP BLUEPRINTS, VERY GOOD to MINT=20
6.OPEN:GRAB BAG OF LOOSE STUFF

CUURENT BID LIST AT http://www.sure.net/~mike-l/forsale.htm

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 01:50:19 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: A look at the new Babylon 5 RPG Task system [LONG]

> Comments?

I really appreciate the info, James.  I really like B5, and I've been 
wondering about this game.  I didn't even know it was out yet.  

It sounds like they've got thier act together much better than IG 
does.  I'm getting a little peeved at IG.  I've got, what, five books 
now, and there's something terribly wrong with most of them.  And, it 
looks like Marc and company are going to keep that half die in the 
revised rules, because I sure haven't heard from them about my 
system.

It is not that I'm upset about them not using my system--I just want 
a good game.  If they come up with something better, then great--but 
get that half die out of there.  

If you are going to fix something, fix it right.

And, I'm getting tired of them not doing things right the first time. 
 Even Marc has messed up.  Just look at First Survey.

I'm anxious to see EA and the screen, and I sure hope that I am not 
dissappointed again.

Again, thanks for the info on B5.  It really looks to be a good game 
from what you've posted.  

Can you go into a little more detail about the rest of the game?  
What do you think of it?  If you don't want to respond to the list 
(and I think you should), then e-mail me in private.

Thanks,

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 97 02:06:36 -0600
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters

On 04/05/97 at 04:57 AM,  shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) said:

> Consider. In one second, with a 6g drive, you can change your position
> from your predicted position by 60 meters. Assuming that your fighter is
> only *10* meters across, that's 6 diameters. So at 1/2 a light second,
> you are safe because the light/radar/whatever signal that bounced off
> your fighter took 1/2 a second to get to the enemy, and the return laser
> shot takes 1/2 second to come back (plus a few milliseconds for
> calculating and aiming). So by the time it gets there you are 60 meters
> away.

> Now try this at .1 light seconds. The lag is .2 seconds. In that time you
> can only move 2.4 meters with a 6g drive. That's a lot less than the 10
> meters across that your fighter is. So the shot aimed "dead center" hits
> a couple meters to the side. You've still been hit.

Yep, you're right.  Actually, it's probably even *worse* than you discribe! 


It's very unlikely the fighter would be able to change vectors fast enough
to really help it even at a 1/2 ls.  If it could instantly apply 6g in some
lateral direction then it will be in a 6 diameter hit circle of probability
(that works out to something like 1/36 chance to hit), but the fighter
*can't* change heading
instantaniously, it's going to take time.  Even if it accelerates right
through the heading change (this is where the g load will whack the pilot)
it won't have moved 6 diameters away in 1 second! How much the fighter can
evade depends on how fast it can turn, how much g load the pilot can take,
how fast it can accelerate, and how much time it takes the sensor/shot to
make the round trip.

I'd guess a small *very* maneuverable ship would be able to evade about 1/3
as well as if it could make instantanious vector changes. It's just a
guess, and I've got the feeling that it's a high guess for a 1 second time
window.

To use your example, the fighter might only be able to evade by 20 meters,
this translates to a 25% chance to hit at 1/2 ls: 

(3.1416*5^2) / (3.1416*10^2) = 0.25  

So, at 150,000k *1* 800ROF laser averages 1 kill/18 seconds and 200
kills/turn.  <g> 


Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 97 02:18:47 -0600
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters and missiles too!

On 04/05/97 at 04:57 AM,  shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) said:

> In traveller, your 500 fighters are going to be starting from hundreds of
> thousands of km away. Consider a fighter that survives to launch a
> missile at the .1 light second range. It's still got to cross 30,000 km.
> In plain sight, with the exhaust plume backlighting it every time it
> makes a course change. And with the lasers getting *more* accurate every
> meter of the way. And the effectiveness of dodging dropping every meter
> of the way.

You know, this applies to missiles too. They can certainly pull much higher
g loads, but they are still going to have to cross *long* distances against
weapon systems that can track and hit them.  

I'm thinking the only effective missiles are going to be stand-off weapons
like laser-head missiles that close to, say, .1 ls and pump multiple
X-lasers at the target. They are still going to be in range of their
targets for several seconds before they can fire and they're going to be
*very* expensive.


Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 08:18:58 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

On Sat, 05 Apr 1997 23:15:15 -0600, you wrote:

> At one light second (300,000,000 meters) with a range calc accuracy of =
say
> 0.000001 you would have a range deviation of + or - 300 meters. With =
that
> kind of accuracy the target would not have to evade.

Range isn't critical, since any target along the path of the beam will
be hit, regardless of any "range deviation".

> If a missile
> traveling at 36g's, releases 10,000 warheads at say 30,000km from the
> target, assuming the missile is armored enough to get past the PD =
stuff,
> the target PD will not get it all, most of it will get to the target.

10,000 warheads !?!  This isn't a missile, it's a small destroyer!
I'd like to see the schematics for designing a MIRV that could carry
and release that many individual warheads over the course of a
fraction of a Combat Turn :)

=46irst off, releasing 10,000 warheads at 36g acceleration 30,000km away
from the target wouldn't leave them enough time to scatter, meaning
that one laser shot could hit them all simultaneously.  Besides,
what's to prevent me from knocking out this large (how big is this
thing?) missile coming straight at me BEFORE it gets a chance to
deploy its warheads?  ONE minor hit and your out 10,000 warheads just
like that, because now they can't even deploy.

I'm sorry but this is just too silly.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 02:06:31 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: KBv2.0

> Here is another ruling I have been using with the KBv2.0 task system:
> 
> For Jack of All Trades skill the target number is the controlling
> characteristic plus the JoAT skill level (NOT the tripled JoAT experience).
> The existing rules make JoAT the best skill in the game by far, with this
> ruling JoAT is more balanced.

I'm using it this way as well.  Since a zero leveled 
individual only use (in KBv2.0) the attribute, 
this makes sense.

Here's a list of the alterations for KBv2.0:

1)
Multiple Action Rule--Divide target number by number of actions 
desired to arrive at the new target number.  If doing more than one 
type of task, use the lowest target number between the individual 
actions before dividing.

2)
Zero-level skill--Only use the attribute (at its 
full value).  (This is really not a rule change from KBv2.0 since 
3 x 0 = 0)

3)
JOT--Use as Richard has described above.

4)
SS & SF--I'm still working on this.  I'll post it when I've got it 
completed.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 01:03:56 -0800
From: George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com>
Subject: Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors 

Sam Thomas wrote:
>George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com> wrote:
>>Almost right.  Done properly, pulse laser rangefinding can have
>>fixed error out to arbitrary distance in a vaccum. [...]
>
>Ok then that would mean that Error1 value would be correct for active laser
>sensors?

No, it means that you know the actual flight time of the photons to
within 1e-6 sec or so, no matter how far it was, so you have a fixed
error of no more than 3e8/1e6 or about 300 meters range.
Once you get stable timing you can measure 0.010033 sec as
accurately as 3.155071 sec, which existing atomic clocks
and optical setups attached to them can do right now...
[You can do better for short range by superimposing a pattern
on the laser freqency and doing interferometry to measure the
shift very precisely, but you need a pattern repeat length of
at least the maximum light time of flight if you do that, and that
gets more or less impossible to work with for times of flight over
a 10km or so distance].


>By the way do you have the knowledge/tools to figure out at a range of 10
>hexes, at 100 meter sphere, how big would your receiving antenna array have
>to be. Also how much power/watts would the laser have to be?

It's largely a photon count problem... you need 10 to 1000 photons
to accurately detect them and time them; you can work out the beam
spread over the distance to the target fairly easily: assume a lens/emitter
diameter (say 1m), focal modifier (if you use gravitics... say TL12=5D^2),
frequency/range factor (100), use the stuff in FF&S pp 127, gives you
a range of roughly 25,000km before beam spread ocurrs.  [this is based
on the actual physics involved].  Munge that to 30,000km for simplicitys
sake and you get a range of 10x "short" range, so beam spread is a factor
of 10^2 of the lens diameter, or 100 meters across).  Figure out how much
of the laser energy in the ranging pulse is on-target by dividing the
vehicle cross sectional area (say, simplify to (length/2)^2) by the spot
area (pi * (100/2)^2 ~= 7500 m2).  You cheated and say a 100-meter sphere,
so in this case that value is unity.  For smaller craft this is an important
factor in detectability/ranging though.  You can do a rough photon count using
the formula e=h/wavelength (check a physics book, mine is in a box under
several hundred pounds of rocket design and parts... I believe that the
value of planck's constant h is 6.6e-34 in this units system... so a single
photon with wavelength 1e-8 (far UV) has about 6.6e-26 J; a 1-joule pulse
would be 1.5e25 photons).  Since the target surface is uneven and will
reflect in all directions, you have to assume that you'll intercept roughly
(collector area) / (hemispherical area at this range) of the photons.
At 10 hexes, that's half the area of a sphere 300,000,000 meters radius,
or 4 * pi * (r^2) = 1.13e18 m^2.  A one-square-meter detector mirror
or lens system would intercept 1.5e25/1.1e18 or about 1.4e7 photons
from that theoretical 1-joule pulse with those optics and can easily
determine range (by about a factor of 1e4 more than needed).

This same sequence can be used with arbitrary target sizes, ranges,
laser pulse intensities, etc.  just substituting the appropriate
numbers in where I made a for-example assumption above.

There is an underlying 1/r^4 law in effect here, but it's probably
easier to do it this way than work out the results that way.
My astronomer friends aren't on the list, or they'd probably do
it just to spite me, though 8-)


- -george william herbert
Retro Aerospace
gherbert@crl.com

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1144
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Sunday, April 6 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1145



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Ohpps
Re: Fighters
Re: Re: Fighters - a Response (Long)
Re: Color of the sky
RE: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters
RE: misjump
Re: Ohpps
The RICE papers???
Vegans
Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors
My take on fighter roles
Sensors
Fire control, long
Re: Fighters
Re: Fighters
Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors 
Re: fighters
Re: Not fighters, missile boats

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 01:12:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Ohpps

On Sun, 6 Apr 1997, Andrew Vallance wrote:

> It appears I've sent the final draft of the newsletter to the list, rather
> than out for final proofing, ohpps :*). Oh well, I guess it won't get the
> final proofing.

Or rather, it *will*, but from a far wider pool of editors. :)  Seriously,
*very* nice work...now, who do I bribe to get an editorial favorable to Ce
Acatl in there?

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 19:21:11 
From: dadams@tig.com.au
Subject: Re: Fighters

Hi guys, after a long break forced by a crashed computer screen, loss of hard disk and my 
attempts to get full time work (I succeeded), I was forced of the net for a while. 
 
Fighters: The problem is here we are getting bound up in the reality/traveller reality 
confusion here.  
 
Under CSC, a person can handle by defult a 2g vehical without grav compensators. Ok, now since 
we are locked into 4g by the tech level of the Imperium, we put in our fighter a 4g grav 
compensator. 
 
Now in the real world (tm), fighter pilots have g-suits that compensate g-forces. I dont know 
what, but lets say for arguments sake we can compensate 3g. 
 
Now, what is wrong of combining all three things together? A figher with a person in a g-suit 
(which by this tech level has to be better than today, but lets just use 3g), that is built to 
handle 4g with grav comps, can now go 7g, and in an emergency can safly go to 9g! Given that 
the best ship of the Imperium can only do 4g without use of pressure suits (which as far as I 
know has not been mentioned in cannonal sources) 
 
Flames are welcome 


Darryl Adams		dadams@tig.com.au 
 

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 14:17:05 +0400
From: Andy Long <andyl@icluae.co.ae>
Subject: Re: Re: Fighters - a Response (Long)

>On Fri, 4 Apr 1997 15:00:27 -0500 (EST)
>MrkGrismer@aol.com said:
>>>>>
>
>Subject: Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)
>
>In a message dated 4/4/97 6:20:54 AM, Solomani wrote:
>
><<>That's all a matter of Gs of acceleration, "top speed" in space is fairly
>>close to the speed of light, so there isn't any real top speed. However,
>>beyond certain speeds it becomes difficult to engage in space combat,
>>since
>>no matter how much accleration you can manage, you're still pretty much
>>traveling in a straight line.
>
>This is an incorrect assumption.  Top speed is whatever a space craft has
>been built to go upto.  Im sure light speed isnt one of them (mayb absurd
>speed:).  Each tech level logically would have an upper limit of the
>absolute fastest speed it can build engines to.>>
>
>How is it incorrect?
>
>In space, drag is negligible. If you apply thrust you accelerate in the
>direction opposite the thrust. The only thing that acts to decellerate you is
>drag, which is neglible. Thus you can continue to accelerate infinitely.
>There is no additional stress on the vehicle, no air resistance to overcome.
>The only limiting factor is relativity, i.e.: the closer you get to the speed
>of light the slower time goes. That and fuel.
>[andy long]  <<<<
>
>I seem to remember from my Physics courses (long ago, I admit) that there IS
>a limit on how fast you can go with reaction drives - The limiting factor is
>the exhaust velocity of the reaction drive. This means that light-based
>propulsion systems have an effectively unlimited top speed (although with a
>low specific impulse), whilst the higher specific impulse propulsion systems
>are limited to how fast you can throw the rocks of the stern.
>
>Anyone else check me on this?
>
>Andy
>
>================================================================
>smtp Email:	andyl@icluae.co.ae OR
>		andylong@x400.icl.co.uk OR
>		A.G.Long@abu0101.wins.icl.co.uk OR
>		andylong@emirates.net.ae
>x400 Email:	c=ae;a=emdan;p=icl;ou1=abu0101;s=Long;i=AG;
>		o=International Computers Ltd;
>A.G. Long, c/o ICL	Phone:	+971 (2) 335200/338066
>PO Box 7237		Fax:	+971 (2) 338724
>Abu Dhabi
>United Arab Emirates
>================================================================
>

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 03:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Color of the sky

> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:40:19 -0800 (PST)
> From: Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>
> 
> I've got my players going to Bruyere in Deneb sector. The atmosphere is
> very thin, tained, with my handy dandy World Builder's Handbook determining
> that the taint consists primarily of sulphur compounds. Bruyere orbits a F0
> V primary, so it's a pretty bright white main sequence star. The planet is
> only 40 percent water, so it's likely to be fairly dry, too. And yes, since
> it's the system mainworld, the planet is in the habitable zone.
> 
> Question: what color would the sky be in broad daylight? At sunset? I think
> I've got night solved. <g>

Think LA in August, if LA were at 15,000 feet. :)  The basic sky color
would be deep violet-blue overhead, fading to more of an aqua shade near
the horizon; add to this a tan-yellowish haze of sulfur compounds in the
first couple of km of the atmosphere, photocatalytically converted by all
that UV-rich sunlight.  Net result from ground level would be white/tan
haze toward the horizon, blue/white haze overhead, with that painfully
bluewhite star glaring down through it.  In other words, *dark* sunglasses
weather. :)

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 15:01:14 +0400
From: Andy Long <andyl@icluae.co.ae>
Subject: RE: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters

>[andy long]  >>>>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:	shadow@krypton.rain.com [SMTP:shadow@krypton.rain.com]
>Sent:	Saturday, April 05, 1997 4:58 PM
>To:	traveller@MPGN.COM
>Subject:	Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters
>[andy long]  <Snip> 
>Consider. In one second, with a 6g drive, you can change your position
>from your predicted position by 60 meters. Assuming that your fighter
>is only *10* meters across, that's 6 diameters. So at 1/2 a light
>second, you are safe because the light/radar/whatever signal that
>bounced off your fighter took 1/2 a second to get to the enemy, and the
>return laser shot takes 1/2 second to come back (plus a few
>milliseconds for calculating and aiming). So by the time it gets there
>you are 60 meters away.
>[andy long]  <<<<
>
>However, in order to use this agility on demand, you've got to have 6G
>thrusters pointing in every direction or be able to sustain an incredible
>roll rate. This knocks out the advantage, being quoted by some of our
>correspondents, that all a fighters acceleration is linear, and doesn't
>require complicated acceleration dampers.
>
>Andy
>
>================================================================
>smtp Email:	andyl@icluae.co.ae OR
>		andylong@x400.icl.co.uk OR
>		A.G.Long@abu0101.wins.icl.co.uk OR
>		andylong@emirates.net.ae
>x400 Email:	c=ae;a=emdan;p=icl;ou1=abu0101;s=Long;i=AG;
>		o=International Computers Ltd;
>A.G. Long, c/o ICL	Phone:	+971 (2) 335200/338066
>PO Box 7237		Fax:	+971 (2) 338724
>Abu Dhabi
>United Arab Emirates
>================================================================
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 15:05:37 +0400
From: Andy Long <andyl@icluae.co.ae>
Subject: RE: misjump

>>>>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:	shadow@krypton.rain.com [SMTP:shadow@krypton.rain.com]
>Sent:	Saturday, April 05, 1997 5:32 PM
>To:	traveller@MPGN.COM
>Subject:	Re: misjump
>
>In mail you write:
>
>>>I think people have overlooked the special reservoir of emergency fuel
>>>that most merchant ships carry...
>>>They're called *passengers*...
>>
>> I beg to differ. Water, beer, fruit, cargo, passengers et al are all
>> unrefined. Extracting the hydrogen will yield less than 10% of its mass as
>> fuel. Even if the entire ship was a cargo bay of beer it wouldn't have
>> enough hydrogen for a jump-1.
>
>Sorry, but you are wrong. Water, people, beer, etc *all* have *more*
>Hydrogen per unit *volume* than LH2!
>
>Work it out. A cubic meter of water weighs 1 ton. One ninth of that is
>hydrogen. So that gives 111 kilos per cubic meter. Or 1556 kilos per
>displacement ton. 
>
>Trouble is, each passenger is a lot *less* than a cubic meter. 10 tons
>of hydrogen would take around 100 passengers.
>[andy long]  <<<<
>
>This gives a whole new lease of life to all the old sea stories of the crew
>resorting to cannibalism in order to survive. I think I can feel a scenario
>coming on.
>
>Andy
>
>================================================================
>smtp Email:	andyl@icluae.co.ae OR
>		andylong@x400.icl.co.uk OR
>		A.G.Long@abu0101.wins.icl.co.uk OR
>		andylong@emirates.net.ae
>x400 Email:	c=ae;a=emdan;p=icl;ou1=abu0101;s=Long;i=AG;
>		o=International Computers Ltd;
>A.G. Long, c/o ICL	Phone:	+971 (2) 335200/338066
>PO Box 7237		Fax:	+971 (2) 338724
>Abu Dhabi
>United Arab Emirates
>================================================================
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 23:47:00 +1200
From: Andrew Vallance <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Ohpps

At 01:12 6/04/1997 -0800, you wrote:
>On Sun, 6 Apr 1997, Andrew Vallance wrote:

>> It appears I've sent the final draft of the newsletter to the list, rather
>> than out for final proofing, ohpps :*). Oh well, I guess it won't get the
>> final proofing.

>Or rather, it *will*, but from a far wider pool of editors. :)  Seriously,
>*very* nice work...now, who do I bribe to get an editorial favorable to Ce
>Acatl in there?

What are you suggesting??!! Surely you mean legitimate entertainment
expenses or charitable donations :*)

  Andrew etc.
    a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz

****************************************************************************
  Be pure, Be strong, Behave
****************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: Sun,  6 Apr 97 10:46:00 GMT 
From: s.johnson107@genie.com
Subject: The RICE papers???

> The expanded Legal and TL digits as presented in the RICE papers
> (toast in honor of Jeff Zeitlin and the other RICE authors) IMO
> are an excellent idea.
    Where, pray tell, can one find a copy of these RICE Papers???

Stephen

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 05:44:03 -0700
From: bri <bri@teleport.com>
Subject: Vegans

 I was wondering if anyone out there knew where I could get a picture of a
Vegan(s)?

 Thanks in advance
bri <bri@teleport.com>

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 14:38:53 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors

> It's largely a photon count problem... you need 10 to 1000 photons
> to accurately detect them and time them; you can work out the beam
> spread over the distance to the target fairly easily: assume a lens/emitter
> diameter (say 1m), focal modifier (if you use gravitics... say TL12=5D^2),

  It is possible that someone have suggested this before, but wouldn't
it be possible to use gravitic focussing for *passive sensors*?

> -george william herbert

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 01:22:23 +1200
From: Andrew Vallance <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
Subject: My take on fighter roles

First off, as the title says this is just my take on the subject.

What (if any) are the roles of spacefighters in Traveller?

  Interface duties
As many people have pointed out airpower does not exist in space, but it
does in an atmosphere. If your planning on invading a world it only makes
sense to bring some along with you. This could be met by bringing single
environment atmospheric craft, but they would be dependent on building or
(more likely) seizing suitable surface facilities. I think it would make
more sense to bring dual environment space fighters to provide aircover
during the crutial landing phase.

  Picket/scouts
Fighters are small, manueverable and have good acceleration. Their sensors
will not be as good as those of larger ship, but they are good enough for
the fighters to serve on picket duty and for investigating contacts. However
they would not be expected to fight; see and run like hell. Getting the
information back is too important.

  Close defence
Fighters can stay close to your own big ships to act as an additional layer
point defence. Not as effective as on board PD perhaps, but every little bit
helps.

  Fast Attack Craft
In certain circumstances, fighters will become very potent. The analogy here
is to modern day FAC's in confined waters. Put some fighters on a moon of a
gas giant (or even better, inside the GG atmosphere). They are small enough
so that the clutter will hide them and they can sit and wait for the enemy
to come and refuel. They'd have to hit fast and hard, then run like hell;
but they would be quite a nasty threat.

  Commerce raiding and deep penetration
Your carrier jumps into system and the fighters fan out and hit as much of
the enemy's commerical shiping and system facilities as possible.

  Finishing off cripples and engaging escorts
Against damaged ships and escorts, fighters will be effective. Why waste
a big ship to finish off a cripple when it can be engaging a higher value
target? Better to leave them to the fighters, effectively increasing the
effectiveness of you big ships. Then there's the enemy escorts, if they are
busy defending themselves against fighters, they can't be doing their job of
covering the big stuff. Fighters in this role could be termed a flexible
reserve. On point here in the fighters favour is that they just have to
plot one target, whereas the escort has to plot all the fighters; this will
go someway to counteracting the bigger ships advantages regarding sensors
and fire control. Here it would be an advantage to have an AWAC type vessel
(I'd term them fighter control ships/craft), either a 100-400Td starship
or a smaller carried non-jump capable craft (think E-2 Hawkeye).

  Engaging enemy fighters
Simply stopping the enemy doing the above. The best counter to a fighter is
a bigger fighter. Here you get to a delicate trade off, the bigger the ship
the less maneuverable (higher inertia and bigger size making turning harder),
plus the bigger the ship the fewer you can have.

  ********************************************************************

On a related topic, many people have proposed that space combat will take
place a very high velocities. While this will be true, I don't think that
they'll be as high as many people seem to believe. It doesn't make good
sense to drop into a system and then accelerate flat out until you met the
enemy. Far better to build up your velocity and establish formation before
jump and arrive in system ready for combat. If you accelerate in a hostile
system without knowing were the enemy is you loss too much flexiblity. If
they're comming from the wrong heading its just too hard to react. Plus at
lower tech you have HEPlaR drives and it would be suicidal to burn too much
fuel before combat. Of course this give no additional advantages to fighters
(they are operating under the same rules).

Just my NZ$0.0278 (at todays rate of exchange).

  Andrew etc.
    a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz

****************************************************************************
  Be pure, Be strong, Behave
****************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 05:39:40 -0700
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)
Subject: Sensors

Hello,
>the fighter" *oney*?  I would think missiles consume some sort of fuel.
>The farther away the missiles are fired, the more fuel they need, the
>greater their comm requirements (or the better their sensors have to be),
>and the bigger their housing.  All of these cost money.  Right?

  I hope so, or your accounting system is in trouble.  But, for some
purposes, like say discretionary launch of a spread of small missiles
from a remote location or awkward vector, a small bus with an expert
system is just the answer.  Call it a drone if the pilot is a robot,
or a fighter if it gripes about the food and its' commanders.  OTOH,
the dividing line between possible roles will be determined by the
design sequences, and in Striker or HG, the minimums aren't a problem.

>>ship-like sensors	carries much less capable sensors
>
>I'm not disagreeing, just curious.  Why is the game designed such that
>smaller ships (ie fighters) carry "much less capable sensors"?

  Economics and/or design constraints.  If my light cruiser wants two
big radar arrays, fine, 2(X) mass, 2 (Y) cost.  If my ten torpedo boats
want one identical capability each for independent use, then 1X and 1Y,
_ten_ _times_.  Hmm.  Is this cost efficient?  BTW, the answer can be yes.


The CT Creed
        "There is no (SF) Game but Traveller, and High Guard is its' Product"
       
Steven Hudson,
        Vancouver, British Columbia
                

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 05:39:45 -0700
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)
Subject: Fire control, long

Hello,
mass snip...
....
>At one light second (300,000,000 meters) with a range calc accuracy of say
>0.000001 you would have a range deviation of + or - 300 meters. With that
>kind of accuracy the target would not have to evade.

  Sorry, maybe I'm missing something but with a laser beam your exact
distance is of little concern - the beam will continue if I guessed
short.  Accuracy/precision in the other two dimensions will count.
Even notoriously primitive passive sensors like telescopes can do that.

....
>Fighters can be effective against large warships but you can not use
>missiles that cost fractions of megacredit and carry a single warhead. The
>missile will not be small, it will not be cheap and will carry large
>numbers of multiple warheads off nukes and KKM types. If a missile
>traveling at 36g's, releases 10,000 warheads at say 30,000km from the
>target, assuming the missile is armored enough to get past the PD stuff,
>the target PD will not get it all, most of it will get to the target. By
>the way some of the math inclined it the warheads are traveling at a
>velocity of 36g's at 30,000km, how long will it take the warhead to reach
>the target area? 

  36 G's is an acceleration, not a velocity.  36 G-seconds would give
you a velocity, but not a real impressive one for our purposes.  What
would be really useful is the physical parameters of a stand-off kinetic
delivery or some sort of Traveller designed missile that works in these
roles.  This means no contact HE, so CT has to use det-lasers :(, but
it should still be attempted.  But "deadfall" ordnance at tens of
thousands of klicks is likely going to end up being very lonely for
the next few thousand years.

  In Striker, at TL 12, each 0.1 kiloton nuke is 15kg and KCr 1.
Ten thousand sub-munitions sounds counter-productive.

>The chance to hit could be stated that a weapon with ROF of 10,000 firing
>at the target. More than one hit is a certainty

  Umm. No. ROF 10K for a laser or battery thereof, yes.  For a spray of
effectively unguided most certainly non-relativistic projectiles, no.
Otherwise I'll just bolt Puff the Magic Dragon to my Scout and hose
you down with my 7.62mm rotaries :)

  BTW, the error chart for sensors is what my associates would
specifically call "math".  It's not necessarily science.  One
thing that could help tidy up these discussions is some word
on sensor values - real or game canon.  I believe 2300 AD may
have some of those values kicking around - I'm not sure.

        Have fun,
                Steven Hudson

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 03:14:13 -0400
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: Fighters

From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay) who wrote:
>>Say Bob, any truth to the rumour that the US Navy used "Three-Sixty"s
Harpoon series of computer simulation games to train their own people?
<<

Not as far as I know. Although it is a very popular game in the Academy.
I did hear rumors that the war collage was looking at it, but decided
not to use it, as the computer AI was not good enough (too predictable).
They prefer to use humans on each side, and let the fog of war be
directed by a third party.


Bob

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 03:07:15 -0400
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: Fighters

jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay) wrote:
> >Look at what we used
> >to teach Iraq a lesson; no aircraft, just Cruisers, Destroyers and =
Subs
> >launching cruise missiles from beyond his range. Aircraft are too
> >fragile to send to downtown Baghdad!=20
>=20
> I'm laughing.  Even CNN knew more than you do.
>=20
> Err, sorry. Not during the war, only the last few times we attacked =
him.

<<<Excuse me, but I think the war was still raging during "the last few
times we attacked him".
>>>

Wrong. Look it up. Bush was in office when the war was over. Clinton
used the US Navy to launch over 100 cruise missiles when Iraq moved some
units in the Krud demilitarized zone back in Sept 96. Read the news.
This happened at lease two separate times. My point is that now the area
over Baghdad is too dangerous for fighters. During the war the Air
Defense had been neutralized and so we could fly with only the guns to
worry about. As long as you stay above 10,000 feet, no problem. Now Iraq
has rebuilt much of what had been destroyed, missiles and radar and
computer systems. 


> However, during the war we DID NOT sent any aircraft over Baghdad until
> the air defense system was taken down. And that includes the F-117.  We
> took it down with some very neat tricks prior to the war starting.

>>>Your definition as to when the "war" officially started and ended is
amusing, especially since you acknowledge attacks that take place both
before and after.  I believe James Gariss's reply was accurate, based
on the content of your original post.
<<<

The war officially started on Jan 17, 1991 at 1:30 AM with the launch of
Tomahawk cruise missiles from ships in the Red Sea and the Gulf. 

Prior to that the special forces had several teams in Iraq doing some
very neat things, clearing the way for the cruise missiles and stealth
bombers that would follow. 

The war ended at 8 AM on Feb 28, 1991, and as far as I know, we did not
attack anything else until Clinton sent in the cruise missiles.

My point stands: The skies over Baghdad are too dangerous for fighters,
UNLESS you do something to knock down the Air Defence. 

But it does bring up some interesting ideas, this is a great model for
how the 3I would be able to bring many hostile planets into the fold. 
 
Use several behind the scenes tricks to make the 3I appear even more
powerful then they are, make an example of one system, use major PR to
skew the opinion, and then watch as more boarder states fall in line
without a fight. 

Ideas?

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 10:52:26 -0400
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors 

George Herbert and Sam Thomas wrote:
>>>>
No, it means that you know the actual flight time of the photons to
within 1e-6 sec or so, no matter how far it was, so you have a fixed
error of no more than 3e8/1e6 or about 300 meters range.
Once you get stable timing you can measure 0.010033 sec as
accurately as 3.155071 sec, which existing atomic clocks=85

=85lots of techno stuff snipped=85

...with wavelength 1e-8 (far UV) has about 6.6e-26 J; a 1-joule pulse
would be 1.5e25 photons).  Since the target surface is uneven and will
reflect in all directions, you have to assume that you'll intercept
roughly
(collector area) / (hemispherical area at this range) of the photons.
At 10 hexes, that's half the area of a sphere 300,000,000 meters radius,
or 4 * pi * (r^2) =3D 1.13e18 m^2.  A one-square-meter detector mirror
or lens system would intercept 1.5e25/1.1e18 or about 1.4e7 photons
from that theoretical 1-joule pulse with those optics and can easily
determine range (by about a factor of 1e4 more than needed).
<<<<

Whoa folks!  Slow down a minute. Could you boys say that again in
english for the mathematically challenged of us out here?  Or tell me
what that means in Traveller terms?  James and I are in the process of
redesigning STS combat and I have a feeling that you are about to make
it much more difficult for me. I like to be as close to hard science as
I can, AND keep it simple.=20

At what range can ships detect each other?
At what range can ships pin point other?
What effect would you say Masking has on that?
What about different TL=92s?  i.e. a TL 12 Scout approaching a very wary
TL 9 system?
In all that is there some simple guidelinmes we can follow?

Thanks in advance!

Bob

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 15:23:43 +0000
From: brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: fighters

Fighters in Traveller would never work like in pop science fiction, 
but used at multi hex ranges like other spacecraft there is still a place
for them in Traveller, for several reasons:

- - Target size. Fighters are much smaller targets than battleships. 
This means that at range a fighter without fire control has the same 
kind of chance of a hitting a battleship as the battleship with fire 
control has of hitting the fighter. Given that fire control costs in 
the region of MCr25 per battery, the fighters have a cost advantage 
in this area.

- - Fire control provides another advantage for the fighters, as a 
large swarm of fighters could easily overload the fire control 
capacity of a battleship, meaning that many fighters would be 
attacked by weapons without fire control, reducing the chances of 
being hit to a very low level. Decoy robotic fighters could further 
overload fire-control and increase survivability for pilots.

- - Battleships designed for combat with like sized ships would be 
denied any efficient target for spinal weapons and big batteries.

The combination of denial of spinal weapons, lack of 
dependence on MFD technology and the reduced size of the dock 
facility needed for fighter construction would seem to make fighters 
a particularly useful weapon for a faction facing a more advanced 
aggressor.

There are advantages in using larger vessels too, but both must 
exist. The reason for this is that designing a battleship to fight 
other battleships is a very different task to designing one 
to fight fighters, the former having larger weapons and less fire 
control. Tactically this means that a battleship targeted at 
fighters is beaten by a battleship-targeted battleship, but the 
battleship-killer is beaten by fighters which are in turn beaten by 
the fighter-killer. This of course gave rise to the Vilani children's 
game "Shipkiller-Fighter-Fighterkiller", where players 
simultaneously produce a gesture symbolising one of the ship-types, 
and the winner is determined by the order:
 "Fighters beat Shipkiller beats Fighterkiller beats Fighters."
The gestures are
Shipkiller : Open hand (all fingers point forward at a single target)
Fighter : Two fingers pointed at the opponent (multiple vessels)
Fighterkiller : Fist (no specific direction of attack or defence)

Personally I like this perspective because it makes a space battle richer 
and more colourful than saying 'fighters always win' or 'fighters 
have no place whatsoever in any circumstance in a battle involving 
battleships'.

Much of the detail of this is based on FFS and Brilliant Lances, but 
it seems to tie in with the T4 rulebook.
 (As I've only just rejoined the TML sorry if I've misunderstood
 the argument.)
- --
Brendan O'Donovan

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 11:46:09 -0400
From: Commander X <cmdrx@magicnet.net>
Subject: Re: Not fighters, missile boats

> Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 00:11:34 +0000
> From: Garry Ward <Garry.E.Ward@worldnet.att.net>
> Subject: Re: Not fighters, missile boats
> 
> At 03:05 PM 4/5/97 +0000, you wrote:
> >snip
> >
> >The first thing i designed with QSDS was the Assault Scout. It was
> >designed to be basicaly a fighter with j-drive.  I took the basic
> >Scout/Courier, added 6g plates and mounted a Military Laser (for the
> >+4FC mod).  These babies rock.  I have done combat scenarios with a
> >small squad of these things against small capitals around 2000Td and
> >less and found how effective they were.  Not bad, they gave the
> >destoryer a run for its money, but the destoryer managed to disable a
> >few with missiles and lasers.  Mind you I only threw 5 Assault Scouts at
> >the thing, more of these scouts could prolly disable or destory it.
> >
> >The Assault Bomber design added 2 Missile barbettes.  It's cool to see
> >capitals waste lasers on missiles, so that when the Scouts come in the
> >capital has nothing left to fire on them with.
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >I will contine building fighters just to see what can be done with a
> >small hull. :)
> >-- 
> >Commander X
> >(cmdrx@magicnet.net <or> bprankard@theiia.org)
> >Creator, Maintainor, and Webmeister of "Planet X"
> >(www.magicnet.net/~cmdrx)
> >
> Bingo! This is what I envision Cleon's designers doing. Taking an existing
> hull, using the newer Fusion+ power plants to release space for expanded
> weapons and sensor suites.
> 
> Now, how much bigger a punch could you pack into this baby if you assumed
> the crew was only on board for 18-36 hours, max, at a time?
> 
> Garry
> 
>  

I would think you would have something akin to my PD-0 Planetary
Defender.  This is basicaly the SDB concept but using the same 100Td
hull.  Removing the j-drive and consequental fuel reqs, i was able to
put in more power and a larger weapon system.  I believe it has the 6g
plates plus 2 military quad batteries.

Fusion plus eh?  I've played with them, small plants yes, but the water
can take up space.  I'll give it a go on the PD-1 upgraded defender and
see what i get :).
- -- 
Commander X
(cmdrx@magicnet.net <or> bprankard@theiia.org)
Creator, Maintainor, and Webmeister of "Planet X"
(www.magicnet.net/~cmdrx)

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1145
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Sunday, April 6 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1146



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)
Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters
Re:Fighters
Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters
Re: Fire control, long
Re: Grav Cities in Gas Giants
Re: Submarine Fighters
Info needed!
Re: AWACS Starships and Zhodani
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Not Fighters, Missile Boats!
Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: Submarine fighters
AWACS Ship

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 10:06:21 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)

 
> Someone good at game-design help me out.  Isn't the answer to "why bring
> the fighter" *oney*?  I would think missiles consume some sort of fuel.
> The farther away the missiles are fired, the more fuel they need, the

This is true if they use the fuel the whole time.  I agree, with
t-plate fighhters, they become useful for their delta v---but why
not either give t-plates to missiles (expensive) or make a missile
bus that has t-plates.  So a 50 ton missile bay might be a 50 ton
craft (unmanned) that carries a bunch of missiles.

> I'm not disagreeing, just curious.  Why is the game designed such that
> smaller ships (ie fighters) carry "much less capable sensors"?

For sensors that can only work at tens to maybe over a hundred kms
the size is't much of an issue.  For space craft, the capabnility of
the sensors is determined entirely by size for passives, and by
power for actives.  Fighters have less of both than bigger ships.
 
- -Merrick 

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 11:12:40 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

At 08:18 AM 4/6/97 GMT, jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay) wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Apr 1997 23:15:15 -0600, you wrote:
>
>> At one light second (300,000,000 meters) with a range calc accuracy of say
>> 0.000001 you would have a range deviation of + or - 300 meters. With that
>> kind of accuracy the target would not have to evade.
>
>Range isn't critical, since any target along the path of the beam will
>be hit, regardless of any "range deviation".
>

Hmm... Range is not critical? Only if the angle of attack is perfectly in
sync with firing laser, example:
 
My missile is approaching the firing ship at a bearing of say 90 degrees,
your PD laser is five meters + elevation and 10 meters aft down the ship's
main axis. Your pd laser will firing at angle so range will be factor.

Also the laser is trying to focus the beam to deliver the precise amount of
energy to cause maximum damage. With out accurate range data the focusing
of the laser beam will be off, resulting in less penetration/damage.
>> If a missile
>> traveling at 36g's, releases 10,000 warheads at say 30,000km from the
>> target, assuming the missile is armored enough to get past the PD stuff,
>> the target PD will not get it all, most of it will get to the target.
>
>10,000 warheads !?!  This isn't a missile, it's a small destroyer!
>I'd like to see the schematics for designing a MIRV that could carry
>and release that many individual warheads over the course of a
>fraction of a Combat Turn :)
>

Yes I would be happy to see the schematic for a working fusion plant too.
Well remember that a combat turn in space is 10 minutes. There are
multitude a deploying that many warheads during that time frame. By the way
that would be 10,217 warheads of a yield of 50t, mass of 81 tons, and a
cost of 5.1 Mcr. All of this in a 10m^3 warhead module. By the by, the
missile can carry more than on of the these warhead modules.

>First off, releasing 10,000 warheads at 36g acceleration 30,000km away
>from the target wouldn't leave them enough time to scatter, meaning
>that one laser shot could hit them all simultaneously.  Besides,
>what's to prevent me from knocking out this large (how big is this
>thing?) missile coming straight at me BEFORE it gets a chance to
>deploy its warheads?  ONE minor hit and your out 10,000 warheads just
>like that, because now they can't even deploy.
>

Well then I release them at an earlier point then, to give them time to
scatter. The missile in question has CSC armor value of >50. That means
that a Point Defense laser will not penetrate its armor. It also has a
agility DM of -25 to be hit. You would have to fire a secondary or main
battery, if they are outfitted to be point defense, to hit it. But remember
it will have lots of friends with it. It your main batteries are engaging
missiles they are not firing at my ships.

>I'm sorry but this is just too silly.

Too you it appear to be silly, it can be designed using current rules for
vehicle design ie CSC/VDS.


- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 16:57:15 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re:Fighters

James responded:

<<

>> In CT and MT, the fighters would have an advantage that they could mount 40
>> off triple turrets between them. The 1000 Te capital ship can only mount 10
>> turrets.... Not sure about T4, as the designs I've tried were QSDS and had
>> limited numbers of weapons. Hence, the fighters would have an offensive
>> edge, especially if you group them as batteries.

>This was determined to be an artificial limitation to starship design.
>The rules for TNE and T4 place weapons according to the calculated
>surface area of hulls of different displacements and configurations.>>

I would describe this as "*designed* to be an artificial limitation", but
at the time I wrote that message no one had decided/stated which version of
Traveller we were discussing. However, I still use High Guard as it is
reasonably fast and playable - I find the TNE design sequences offensive in
*my* universe as it changed canon so much. Dropping T-plates was heresy!
;-) I mean,  I like T2300AD which seemed to be the source of the changes,
but Traveller was never Aliens-esque too me, its always been
Foundation/Norton etc.

T4 has yet (IMO) to have a consistent design sequence, and until then I'll
stick with HG and Rob F's conversion system.

>As for grouping all of the weapons of a fighter squadron into a single
>battery, I do not believe this is possible in any rendition of the
>Traveller rules.

Agreed. It wasn't canon. But when I played Traveller a lot (CT/MT eras) it
seemed to be a common response from refs who wanted to make fighters more
"Star Wars". Much in the same way that most task systems mentioned on the
list start at 2D and go up in whole dice increments...

Personally, I see fighters as no more than an irritation for capital ships.
Your fleet (a combination of escorts, carriers, cruisers and BBs) deploys
in system after jump. The escorts form the initial battle line as the fleet
co-ordinates out of jump, and the carriers deploy fighters to the line of
battle, giving a screen to the capital ships in the reserve. You then close
to battle, which tends to break into fighters and escorts vs fighters and
escorts and the capital ships of both sides duke it out. (Horses for
courses.) The fighters then screen any withdrawl through shear numbers in
the line of battle, then withdraw to the carrier (which is in itself
screened by FE, DD and *maybe* a cruiser or two). The carrier jumps clear,
and the escorts then follow.

As a thought, both B5 *and StarWars* imply that fighters are useless
against capital ships. The Death Star is weak because fighters aren't
viewed as a threat and design neglects them (and in Return of the Jedi the
closing of the two fleets is with great reluctance and the fighters get
creamed). In one B5 episode, the 'combined fleet' hits a shadow fleet (just
before then end of one of the series, can't remember which) and the various
ship classes break off to fight their counterparts.

To conclude: Fighters are good for screening the fleet, scouting, hit and
run versus civilian and small military targets, but are not any good
against a capital ship. UNLESS you change the rules. (Which is what the
grouping in batteries mentioned above  was!)

- --------------- Dom Mooney (dom@cybergoths.u-net.com)---------------
"The fall of Empire, Gentlemen, is a massive thing, however, and not easily
fought. It is dictated by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a
freezing of caste, a damming of curiousity - a hundred other factors."
                                 Hari Seldon - Azimov's "Foundation"

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 10:22:21 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

 
> 10,000 warheads !?!  This isn't a missile, it's a small destroyer!
> I'd like to see the schematics for designing a MIRV that could carry
> and release that many individual warheads over the course of a
> fraction of a Combat Turn :)
 
The warheads might be small pellets :-)

> =46irst off, releasing 10,000 warheads at 36g acceleration 30,000km away
> from the target wouldn't leave them enough time to scatter, meaning

I think he meant that the missile would have a closing velocity of
36 hexes (a 36g burn)---that's 600 km/s.  The "warheads" are
dispersed *after that acceleration to the target.

If I read this right, it's just a bb missile.

- -Merrick

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 11:33:16 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Fire control, long

At 05:39 AM 4/6/97 -0700, shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca wrote:
>Hello,
>mass snip...
>mass snip too<
>  In Striker, at TL 12, each 0.1 kiloton nuke is 15kg and KCr 1.
>Ten thousand sub-munitions sounds counter-productive.
>

That is correct it I was using Tl-12 but I am using TL-15 for nuke round
size and mass. 10,000 submunitions to hit a 10 Gigacredit warship for a
cost of 5.1 Mcr sounds very productive to me.<g>

>>The chance to hit could be stated that a weapon with ROF of 10,000 firing
>>at the target. More than one hit is a certainty
>
>  Umm. No. ROF 10K for a laser or battery thereof, yes.  For a spray of
>effectively unguided most certainly non-relativistic projectiles, no.
>Otherwise I'll just bolt Puff the Magic Dragon to my Scout and hose
>you down with my 7.62mm rotaries :)
>

Well would your 7.62 have the pen value to even scuff the paint job of a
warship?
A shotgun uses the same unguided projectiles to hit fast moving targets. By
the way did I mention that the nukes also had timers so that they would
detonate in the target close proximity. As for the KKM warheads one of them
uses 1cm 10gram spheres with a pen of 38 at the speed of 30g's.


- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 05:30:06 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Grav Cities in Gas Giants

In mail you write:

>
> In a message dated 4/4/97 8:15:40 AM, Craig Berry wrote:
>
> <<You're at the bottom of a huge gravity well,>>
>
> Are you? How much does the gravity fall off between the "surface" of a gas
> giant and the upper atmosphere?

It falls off via the inverse square law. And gas giants don't really
have "surfaces". What we seen in telescopes *is* the upper atmosphere!

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 05:34:41 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

In mail you write:

>> In TNE you can
>> have more then 6G acceleration.
>
>    In TNE, big ships as well as fighters can have more than 6G
>    acceleration.  This is why there are no real fighters in Trav, only
>    "gunboats".  If you want fighters to be feasable, you'll need to make
>    some rules up that give them an advantage over big ships.  The
>    current rules treat them exactly like big ships, only smaller.

"Big" ships can't operate effectively at accelerations higher than
their g-comp rating. Fighters *can*. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 05:44:40 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Info needed!

I'm trying to consilidate info from the various rules regarding some
things. I've dug some of my stuff out of storage, including things I
didn't realize I *owned*.

Anyway, right now, I'm interested in two items:

1. Jump duration and/or accuracy
	So far all I've found is the stuff that says "X parsecs" and
	"one week" in all the rules, and the 120 + 2d*6 duration rule
	from Starship Operator's manual. What other references are
	there?

2. creating "communications routes"
	The first edition of the "little black books" had a table for
	determining if there was a "route" between systems based on the
	distance and starport type. I can't find my copies, if someone
	else can, please post.

Thanks!

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 05:36:59 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: AWACS Starships and Zhodani

In mail you write:

> At 08:59 PM 4/3/97 -0500, J. Raynor wrote:
>
>>Referring to the "Lensman" series makes me wonder about the role (if any)
>>of telepaths and clairvoyants in the Zhodani fleet.  Although it probably
>>wouldn't happen, because the distances between vessels is so great, it's
>>very easy to envision a Zhodani admiral, snapping out orders to a crowd of
>>attentive telepaths, who then relay those orders to telepaths aboard other
>>vessels.  Meanwhile, aboard the Imperial warships that Zhodani fleet is
>>about to engage, the officers in charge of electronic warfare are audibly
>>grinding their teeth down with frustration, fully aware of what those
>>dirty brain-raping Zho-ies are up to, but powerless to stop them...
>
> In my opinion, units that are tasked with fighting the Zhodani would be
> equipped with psionic shields as a matter of basic issue.

I think he's referring to the fact that TP gives the Zhodani a comm
channel that can't be intercepted by the Imperial forces. Nor can it
easily be jammed. 

This *would* annoy the hell out of the EW officers! It makes their
efforts pretty much useless. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 05:55:48 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

In mail you write:

> At 02:24 AM 4/4/97 PST, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:
>>In mail you write:
>>
>>> I would attest that today an F-117 at night could get with in 20 feet of a
>>> C-130, even if the C-130 knew it was out there and trying to get close.
>>> When you move to the world of Starships, zero-g, armored hulls etc. That
>>> "F-117" could not only get with in 20 feet of the "Cargo Plane", it could
>>> potentially lock on.
>>
>>Sorry, but there's a major problem here. Ships *will* have IR sensors,
>>simply necause that's the best *passive* means of spotting things. and
>>actually *better* than active radar at spotting objects a long ways
>>off. 
>
> Part of the above I agree with in Passive sensors should always have a
> greater range than active sensors. The part I disagree with is the heat/IR
> part, in T4/MT/TNE there has been "handwaving" regarding heat
> generation/radiation in spacecraft. If we accept the "Handwaving" regarding
> the heat build up then the IR signature of target will not be what it
> should be by todays tech. If we do not accept the "Handwaving" then the
> entire ship system is truly Pooched. So I for one, have to accept the
> "Handwaving" regarding the heat generation/radiation. So with "handwaving"
> mode engaged the IR signature will not be as pronounced.

Sorry, but the "handwaving" mostly affects the heat from the powerplant
and heavy gear. For life support reasons, most of the hulll *still* has
to be at 300-400k, not only due to thermal leakage from inside, but
because of "solar" heating of the hull (at typical mainworld distances.

IRAS detected *lots* of asteroids etc that were noticably *colder* than
this, simply because of the *major* contrast with the 3k background of
the sky!

>>On IR, your F-117 is the equivalent of a road flare. The backgound
>>(empty space) is at 3K. The life support areas of the ship are at 300K
>>(read, 100 *million* times as bright). The engineering spaces and
>>especially the engines or drive may have substantial areas at 3000k or
>>higher (read one *trillion* times as bright as the background). 
>
> Yes very true, but what about the point when the IR level falls below the
> detection threshold of the IR sensor. 

Doesn't apply for a ship sized body unless it is *way* outside combat
ranges. Pretty damn *basic* sensors well be able to pick out a ship at
tens of light seconds. Missiles will be detectable (especially due to
the hot exhaust plume!) at a light second or more.

> A crude example would be the mark one naked eye looking at the
> constellation of Orion, under a cloudless, night under perfect conditions,
> the MK 1 would see the pattern of the constellation, but not the many other
> stars that you could see the telescope or the Hubble. The mk 1 would
> perceive the non detectable stars as blackness.

So? Those stars are *light years* away. We are talking about detecting
ships at a few light seconds or less. *Big* difference.

Please note that the same "mark 1 eyeball" can detect the light
reflected off a sphere less than half a meter across at several hundred
miles. That is, I was able to see Sputnik I from the ground...

> The distance from the IR source and detection sensor factors into the
> ability of the sensors to detect the IR source.

Since the *purpose* of the sensors is to not only detect ships, but the
larger chunks of "space junk" at ranges adequate to dodge them, and
while they are inn equilibrium with solar radiation, it won't have
trouble picking out ships or missiles.

>>That'd be like trying to sneak up on the cargo plane while aiming
>>landing lights at the pilot!
>
> But under daylight conditions using leading edge lights the carge plane
> would not detect the approacing palne until it very close. This method was
> tested/used during WWII on aircraft searching for Uboats and had a greater
> success than most people know about.

But that's my whole point. That trick worked because the lights made
the plane about the same brightness as the sky behind it. In space, the
sky is far *darker* than you can get any ship or missile to be!

So we are talking about a plane trying to sneak up with its lights on
*at night*.

>>And before you try to say that you'll "stealth" the ship with regards
>>to IR, better consider that this is *very* hard to do. It'll take
>>*huge* amounts of power to cool just the side facing the other ship
>>down to a "safe" temperature, and it'll require dumping so much extra
>>heat from the other side that you'll stand out like a beacon to anyone
>>looking from that side. The more narrowly you restrict your emissions,
>>the more power it takes, and the more visible you are from the angle
>>you still emit. 
>
> Yes this is true but with "handwaving" mode engaged the stealth possiblity
> is very available. Ie a "Super Handwaving" mode for IR stealth, using
> advanced forms the "Handwaving" method of heat generation/radiation
> management.

Sorry, but my take on the "handwaving" is that we need to fix ship
design, not use its shortcomings as an excuse to violate reality in
*other* ways.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 09:39:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>
Subject: Not Fighters, Missile Boats!

  This was exactly the same conclusion I came to when designing some SDBs
to run my Happy Fun Ball Clone against to test weaponry packages.  At low
tech levels (9-11), missiles are the only effective weapon choice - laser
and beam weapons just don't work in small (600T and under) hulls.  The
other big design problem is, surprisingly, sensor cost - effective sensors
at lower tech levels are much more expensive, and require a real sacrifice
in terms of total ship numbers if included on every ship.  Though I did
not go on to design it, a pack approuch would seem to be ideal - a group
with one ship with good sensors, feeding targeting information to the rest
through tight-beam links.  

______________________________
Dr. Mark Clark
Oregon Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 06:22:35 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors

In mail you write:

> In a message dated 4/4/97 6:24:22 AM, Erwin Fritz wrote:
>
> <<Now, the combat round is 20 minutes. This is enough of a period for
> the jiggling to have no effect on direction.
>
> Jiggling is produced by the steering jets, not the maneuver drive.
> The accelerations are small but are enough so that the ship is 
> constantly changing its orientation.>>
>
> However that is all it can change with attitude jets. Thus it can spin or
> rotate around it's axis, but it can't move rapidly up, down, nor sideways.
> Doing so requires a vector change, and at high vectors High Gs are required
> to affect a vector change.

You are forgetting that this is a *boarding action*. That means that
the *relative* vector between the ships is *small*. BY DEFINITION!

So as far as the vessel attempting to dock is concerned the two ships
are *at rest* a short distance apart. So the steering jets *are*
useful. So is playing with the throttle on the main drive. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 06:11:43 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

In mail you write:

> It certainly would not be like the bridge of the Enterprise.
> Everyone would have to be strapped down and preferably wearing a G
> suit.  Many people will pass out at 6 Gs if not trained.  At 9 Gs
> most people will pass out.  Above this there are few even well
> trained that can maintain consiousness.

You need to specify *which direction* this acceleration is in. It
sounds like you are talking about pulling g's the way fighter pilots
due, not the way astronauts do. 

A fighter pilot feels acceleration mostly on an axis from head to toes.
"Negative gees" are in the opposite direction .

But what the pilot of a space fighter will feel are *transverse* gees.
Thrust will be felt from chest towards back. 

Transverse gees are *much* easier to take. Ordinary people can handle 3
for modest amounts of time (there are *carnival rides* that provide 2-3
transverse gees for 5-10 minutes!). 

Trained pilots should have little trouble with 9 gees transverse. But
given the limits of drives in traveller, 9 gees isn't likely. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 06:28:28 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Submarine fighters

In mail you write:

>>for sub-fighters?  Is there a space analogy for the noise problem you
>>mentioned wrt subs?  If not, if you could hand-wave away the noise problems
>>(loading/unloading done at a safe distance with all rubber parts, or
>>something), would that change things?
>
> The space equivalent for noise would be heat radiation and IR signature, and
> since it is hand-waved away in the game I think it would be totally fair
> for this discussion to wave away the noise problem; either one will throw 
> your shoulder out <g>.

The only "handwaving" done regarding this has to do with the need of
ships to *safely* dispose of excess heat. The fact that it is emitted
hasn't been.

> Another thing that just occurred to me: what about frictionless
> materials?  At what TL do they show up (since they are a very OLD
> standard of sci-fi)? Give a sub a coating of Slipee(TM) (a product of
> Better Way Industries, "Letting You Live in a Better Way!"(TM),
> available at all Better Starship/Home and Garden Supply Stores) and
> it makes the subs=starships analogy even better.

Doesn't help much. We *already* have good approaches to it. But there
are *three* kinds of drag. Friction drag, viscous drag and pressure
drag. Pressure drag is due to the stuff piling up in front of you, and
viscous drag is caused by the viscosity of the medium making it hard to
get past you. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 13:38:11 +0000
From: "John Long" <jlong@wilmington.net>
Subject: AWACS Ship

Well Everyone,

After seeing all the discussion about the AWACS Starship, I decided 
to try to design one.  So here it is.  I used the standard SSDS 
template without modifying any of the systems or custom designing 
any-that's to come later  :)

So take a look and give me you thoughts/feedback if you would.

thanks
John Long

EyeSpot
Vanguard Class AWACS class Advanced Early warning 
	and Combat Control Ship ( SSDS )
Designed and built by Long Yards. John Long Naval Architect 					
						
Tons: 700 std ( SL Wedge )"Volume: 9,800 m^3	Cost: 925.522MCr 
(832.970 MCr )		
Crew: 17/19 ( /HighAuto  )	Passengers High/Medium: 
0/6	Passengers Low: 0 	Cargo: 40.0 std	Controls: Military Std (/Fib)	
Tech Level: 12	
8 Size Rating		3	 Jump Drive ( 70 std/pc fuel)
				3	" Maneuver (Thruster, 525 Mw )"	
				3	 Power Plant Rating ( 1x500Mw 1x500Mw )	
				221	 Fuel ( /Scoop:2.5 /Refine:2.2 )	
				2	 Sandcaster ( 30 cans )
				3	 Nuclear Damper ( 45Mw )
				5	 Meson Screen ( 25 Mw) 
				0	 Black Globe	
				A10 P4 J10	 Sensors ( /EMM )
				40"Armor,  22  Structure"			

		1xSick Bay ( 8 std )				
						
		1xMinimal Hangar ( 30 std craft )				
						
		"Crew Details: 2 cmd, 2 mvr, 4 elc, 1 gun, 4 scr, 2 eng, 0 mtn, 2 
					crf, 0 trp, 0 sci, 1 stw, 0 brk, 1 med"				
						
						
Notes	Including the latest technology and the Capability of jump-3 
give the vanguard class the long range and quick 
reaction necessary for the early warning/ fleet control 
role.	 The ship mounts 4 of the most powerful military sensor suites 
and very stong defensive capabilities	It however does not mount any 
offensive weaponry as the ship is not designed for combat, but 
rather to direct engagements and provide fleet early warning.	


SSDS Design Template															
																
		Ship Name	EyeSpot													
		Ship Class	Vanguard Class AWACS													
		Ship Description	Advanced Early warning and Combat Control 
Ship													
		Ship Designer	Long Yards-John Long													
		Notes	
		Design Tech Level	12													
		Subsidized design?	1	No												
																
	Item															
	Hull		#	Cd			Notes	Mass	Vol	Area	Power	Cost	Mx	En	Gn	El
		Size		16			700		-9800.00	-3300.0						
		Configuration		3			Wedge									
		Streamlining		2			Streamlined									
		Length					67.5 meters									
		Internal structure		8				283.20	18.88			0.26				
		Armor		40				1416.00	94.40			0.93				
		Required airlocks	7					1.40	21.00	14.0	0.01	0.04				
		Extra airlocks	0					0.00	0.00	0.0	0.00	0.00				
	Drives		#	Cd			Notes	Mass	Vol	Area	Power	Cost	Mx	En	Gn	El
		Jump	1	3			Jump-3	1176.00	392.00	131.0		117.60	0.08	0.49		
		Jump fuel	3				3 Parsecs		2940.00							
		Contra-grav	1	1			1-G	80.00	120.00	120.0	40.00	12.00	0.01	0.15		
		Fusion drive	0	1			No drive	0.00	0.00	0.0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00		
		Fusion fuel	0				0 G-Hours		0.00							
		Heplar	0	1			No drive	0.00	0.00	0.0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00		
		Heplar fuel	0				0 G-Hours		0.00							
		Thrusters	1	3			3-G	1050.00	525.00	105.0	525.00	131.30	0.07	0.66		
	Weapons		#	Bt	Mfd	ROF	Notes	Mass	Vol	Area	Power	Cost	Mx	En	Gn	El
		Empty light sockets	0						0.00	0.0		0.00				
		Empty heavy sockets	0						0.00	0.0		0.00				
		Light lasers	0	1	0	1		0.00	0.00	0.0	0.00	0.00	0.00		0.00	
		Heavy lasers	0	1	0	1		0.00	0.00	0.0	0.00	0.00	0.00		0.00	
		Light PD lasers	0	1	0	1		0.00	0.00	0.0	0.00	0.00	0.00		0.00	
		Heavy PD lasers	0	1	0	1		0.00	0.00	0.0	0.00	0.00	0.00		0.00	
		Light missile launcher	0	1		1		0.00	0.00	0.0	0.00	0.00	0.00		0.00	
		Heavy missile launcher	0	1		0		0.00	0.00	0.0	0.00	0.00	0.00		0.00	
		Missile bay	0	1		0		0.00	0.00	0.0	0.00	0.00	0.00		0.00	
		Laser Bay	0	1		0		0.00	0.00	0.0	0.00	0.00	0.00		0.00	
		Meson Bay	0			1		0.00	0.00	0.0	0.00	0.00	0.00		0.00	
		PA Spinal	0	1				0.00	0.00	0.0	0.00	0.00	0.00		0.00	
		Meson Spinal	0	1				0.00	0.00	0.0	0.00	0.00	0.00		0.00	
	Defences		#	Bt	Mfd		Notes	Mass	Vol	Area	Power	Cost	Mx	En	Gn	El
		Sandcasters	2	1	0		2 ( 30 cans 
)	100.00	84.00	20.0	2.00	1.60	0.01		1.00	
		Nuclear 
dampers	1	3			"90,000km"	228.00	235.00	22.5	45.00	6.15	0.02		1.00	
		Meson 
screens	1	2			177	380.00	507.00	250.0	25.00	50.70	0.08		4.00	
		Black Globe	0					0.00	0.00	0.0	0.00	0.00	0.00			
	Electronics		#	Cd			Notes	Mass	Vol	Area	Power	Cost	Mx	En	Gn	El
		Controls	2					1.96	19.60		0.70	2.10	0.00			
		Automation Level		3			High	\								
		Electronics 
Package	4	5			Military	254.84	174.34	1324.8	122.82	344.59	0.00			3.85
		Stealth or EMM		3			EMM	98.00	196.00	98.0	9.80	49.00	0.00			
	Life Support		#	Cd			Notes	Mass	Vol	Area	Power	Cost	Mx	En	Gn	El
		Life Support	1	2			Standard	78.40	78.40		1.96	4.90				
		Passenger G-Tanks	0					0.00	0.00			0.00				
		Crew G-Tanks	0					0.00	0.00			0.00				
		Artificial Gravity	1					196.00	98.00		49.00	4.90	0.01			
	Equipment		#	Cd	Ex		Notes	Mass	Vol	Area	Power	Cost	Mx	En	Gn	El
		Engineering shop	0					0.00	0.00		0.00	0.00				
		Machine shop	0					0.00	0.00		0.00	0.00				
		Laboratory	0					0.00	0.00		0.00	0.00				
		Sickbay	1					50.00	112.00		0.80	5.00				
		Special feature	0					0.00	0.00	0.0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
		Special feature	0					0.00	0.00	0.0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
		Special feature	0					0.00	0.00	0.0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
		Special feature	0					0.00	0.00	0.0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
		Minimal hangar	1	3			30std craft	168.00	840.00	85.0		0.26				
		Minimal hangar	0	1			10std craft	0.00	0.00	0.0		0.00				
		Spacious hangar	0	1			10std craft	0.00	0.00	0.0		0.00				
		Spacious hangar	0	1			10std craft	0.00	0.00	0.0		0.00				
		Ring	0	1			10std craft	0.00	0.00	0.0		0.00				
		Ring	0	1			10std craft	0.00	0.00	0.0		0.00				
		Launch tubes	0	1			10std craft	0.00	0.00	0.0	0.00	0.00				
		Launch tubes	0	1			10std craft	0.00	0.00	0.0	0.00	0.00				
		Grapples	0	1			10std craft		0.00	0.0		0.00				
		Grapples	0	1			10std craft		0.00	0.0		0.00				
		Vehicle Bay	0	1			1std vehicle		0.00							
		Vehicle Bay	0	1			1std vehicle		0.00							
		Jmp Cap. Launcher	0	1					0.00			0.00				
		Fuel scoops	2				2.5 hours			330.0		0.02				
		Fuel purification plant	2	1			2.2 
hours	1120.00	560.00		8.40	0.22				
		Collapsible Tanks	0	0					0.00			0.00				
		Dismount. Fuel Tanks	0	0					0.00			0.00				
		Rigid Collap. Tanks	0	0					0.00			0.00				
		Drop Tanks	0	0					0.00			0.00				
	Power Plants		#	Cd	Ex		Notes	Mass	Vol	Area	Power	Cost	Mx	En	Gn	El
		Fission plant	0	1			5	0.00	0.00		0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00		
		Fuel		0.0			0.0 years		0.00							
		Fission plant	0	1			5	0.00	0.00		0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00		
		Fuel		1.0			1 year		0.00							
		Fusion plant	1	8			500	1000.00	250.00		-500.00	50.00	0.07	0.58		
		Fuel		1.0			1 year		75.00							
		Fusion plant	1	8			500	1000.00	250.00		-500.00	50.00	0.07	0.58		
		Fuel		1.0			1 year		75.00							
		Fuel cell	0	1			5	0.00	0.00		0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00		
		Fuel		1.0			1 hour		0.00							
		Fuel cell	0	1			5	0.00	0.00		0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00		
		Fuel		1.0			1 hour		0.00							
		Solar Panels	0	1				0.00	0.00	0.0	0.00	0.00				
		Solar Panels	0	1				0.00	0.00	0.0	0.00	0.00				
	Crew		#	Cd	Ex		Notes	Mass	Vol	Area	Power	Cost	Mx	En	Gn	El
		Maintenance	0	0												
		Engineering	2	2												
		Electronics	4	3												
		Maneuver	2	2												
		Gunnery	1	2												
		Screens	4	4												
		Kibitzer	0	0												
		Small craft	2													
		Troops	0													
		Command	2	2												
		High Passengers	0													
		Medium Passengers	6													
		Low Passengers	0													
		Science	0													
		Stewards	1	1												
		Brokers	0													
		Medical	1	1												
		Total Regular Crew	10	9												
		Total Crew	19													
		Total Personnel	25													
	Crew Stations		#	Cd	Ex		Notes	Mass	Vol	Area	Power	Cost	Mx	En	Gn	El
		Workstations	3	11				0.60	21.00			0.00				
		Bridge workstations	0	0			Not required	0.00	0.00			0.00				
	Quarters		#	Cd	Ex		Notes	Mass	Vol	Area	Power	Cost	Mx	En	Gn	El
		Bunks	0					0.00	0.00			0.00				
		Small staterooms	20					40.00	560.00		0.01	0.80				
		Large staterooms	6					24.00	336.00		0.01	0.60				
		Low berths	0					0.00	0.00		0.00	0.00				
		Emer. low berths	0					0.00	0.00		0.00	0.00				
	Additional 
Space		#	Cd	Ex		Notes	Mass	Vol	Area	Power	Cost	Mx	En	Gn	El
		Extra fuel	40					0.00	560.00							
		Cargo space	40						560.00							
		Large cargo hatch	0	2						0.0		0.00				
		Small cargo hatch	0	0						0.0		0.00				
		Waste space					0.00		0.00							
	Totals							8746.40	-97.38	-799.7	-169.50	832.97	0.42	2.47	6.00	3.8
5
																
																
g	

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1146
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Sunday, April 6 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1147



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Submarine Fighters
Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
Not fighters but maybe small craft
Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors
Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters
Fighters and Missiles
Re: Fighter Design
Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters
Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters and missiles too!
Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors
Re: Energy Propagation For Sensors(Long)
Re: Fighters
TL & Darrians
Re: Not fighters, missile boats
Re: Ohpps
Re: [CSC:Errata]Traveller Question: Material Costs
T4 Game Screen and UWP
Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors
Re: A look at the new Babylon 5 RPG Task system
Fighters
Re: [T97#1136] TL Advancement
Re: matching vectors (new questions)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 12:17:33 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

 
> "Big" ships can't operate effectively at accelerations higher than
> their g-comp rating. Fighters *can*. 

Huh?  I can see how they could rotate better, but whay could a guy
in a couch on a fighter pull more (linear) acceleration gs than a
guy in a couch on a BB?

I can see the point if we assume the BB crew is walking around
and not strapped in.  What do you mean?

- -Merrick

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 20:20:30 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters

>Yes, but the beam weapons make missiles and fighters next to useless.
>Unlike WWII, these are going to hit what they shoot at. Every time. The
>only defence is to be far enough away that your evasive manuevers can
>cause the beam to miss. That means several light seconds. That's
>several times the distance to the *moon*.

That does not mean several lightseconds, read my earlier post about
timelags, acceleration, shipsizes and evading. Drop me a note and I'll send
it to you as I don't want to repost it to the list (it's kinda longish).


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 20:20:23 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

>Another very good reason: A laser does more damage the longer it is
>trained on a particular spot. (My childhood experiments with plastic
>toys, sunlight, and magnifying glasses proved this) If the ship rotates,
>you force an attacking laser to distribute its energy over a greater
>area, thus reducing penetration and hopefully, damage.

You cannot have the cake and eat it. Either spinning brings more guns to
bear with no adverse side effects OR spinning makes the damage less severe.
If spinning lessens damage then you assume beam lasers who definately would
be adversely affected by spinning.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 12:21:02 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors

 
> So as far as the vessel attempting to dock is concerned the two ships
> are *at rest* a short distance apart. So the steering jets *are*
> useful. So is playing with the throttle on the main drive. 

I would assume that even t-plates have a nasty exhaust at boarding
ranges (even if it's IR photons)---another reason why you *must*
disable the target.  If he is spinning, boarding means send guys
over in EVA equipped vacc suits (or battledress with thrusters).
These guys would be unhappy if caught in exhaust :-)

- -Merrick

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 12:31:45 -0600 (CST)
From: Jeff Brawley <brawleyj@UWSTOUT.EDU>
Subject: Not fighters but maybe small craft

>As I see it small warcraft in Traveller are much closer to torpedo boats
>than fighter planes, if you want an analogy.  They are a little faster
>(sometimes), more agile (usually), and without their torpedos little more
>than speedboats with machine guns.  Even with their torpedos, torpedo
>boats, weren't especially effective in attacks on capital ships, unless
>they had the advantage of total surprise from darkness or cover.
>
>Now, I think Traveller can give you the torpedos (big missiles that can
>damage capital ships), but not the cover.  <G>
>
>How about something like the following:
>
>Parker Class Missile Boat - something like 80 to 100 sdt..crew of 3 to 5. 
>Designed to be as fast (best acceleration you can give them) and
>maneuverable as possible, have fair sized sensor suites, have a *little*
>armor (enough to give them some protection from civilian lasers), armed
>with missiles that can damage a capital ship and a couple of low power
>lasers for soft targets.  In squadrons, they would launch swarms of
>missiles toward a capital ship from *very* *long* range and then run like
>hell (still taking loses from covering fire from *destroyers*..that's why
>they were originally called torpedo boat destroyers.  <g>), and although
>most of their missiles would be picked off by point defences they *might*
>get a lucky hit and do some damage to a capital ship.  Their main use in
>fleet action would be to occupy the escorts for a little while, *maybe*
>drawing them off so more capable ships can get their missile swarms past
>the escorts and into the capital ships.  We might equip them with
>*several* sandcasters and allow them to perform some limited
>screening and cover operations as well.
>
>The Missile Boat's missions would include:  1.  System patrol; 2. a little
>Intellegence gathering and Picket duty; 3.  Commerce
>escort/raider duty; and 4. squadron sized missile attacks (probably not too
>effective) on capital ships.  IAC, a Missile Boat trying to close with any
>*warship* bigger than themselves would be suicide.
>
>These would be short duration/non-jump boats based working out of a tender,
>or a base.  I'd expect these boats to work in groups, seldom alone.
>
>Does anyone want to write up the details? ;->

I've been listening to this argument for a long time, and this is the
argument that I agree with.  It is solid and logical.  

You know what I'd call these missle boats???  

SDB's

Everything that was said about these missle boats, is applicable to SDBs.
Or at least the smaller ones.  

Overall I like the idea of an offensive SDB, sort of a Fleet Missle Boat FMB
or whatever.

(ducks to avoid flying chairs)

Jeff

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 20:43:49 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors

>Passive sensors, on the other hand, are much less accurate than any
>of your given examples.  You don't really get distance except indirectly
>(via matching a course to the angular motion; matching signature size
>with known target signature; with multiple sensors, triangulation)
>with passive sensors.

You shoot at the passively detected ship and watch (passively) for the
reflected light from hits/missed shots. There's your range estimate which
isn't all that important in comparison to angular velocity.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 18:46:12 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

On Sun, 6 Apr 1997 10:22:21 -0600 (MDT), you wrote:

> =20
> > 10,000 warheads !?!  This isn't a missile, it's a small destroyer!
> > I'd like to see the schematics for designing a MIRV that could carry
> > and release that many individual warheads over the course of a
> > fraction of a Combat Turn :)
> =20
> The warheads might be small pellets :-)

Yes they can, but he did say it would carry "large numbers of multiple
warheads of nukes and KKM types".

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 17:52:56 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Fighters and Missiles

Now, the general concencus seems to be that fighters are going to get
wasted if used against capital ships, something that I subscribe to. The
only survivable approach appears to be to use stand off weapons like
missiles. But the ROF of lasers means that they are almost certainly killed
by laser fire.

Now, I have a question. In the T4 combat rules, the fire control rating
limits the number of targets engaged. So I would have thought that the only
way to succeed in hitting is to overwhelm the target with multiple attacks
simultaneously, a la 2300AD's Star Cruiser Game. But, defensive fire
against missiles appears to be exempt from the number of targets limitation
(p119). So the question is "Why are missiles not counted against the number
of targets engaged limit in T4?"

If they were, it would give fighters a chance. Do the rules just handwave
this through, or am I reading it wrong? Are there close range PD sensors
not mentioned...

- --------------- Dom Mooney (dom@cybergoths.u-net.com)---------------
"The fall of Empire, Gentlemen, is a massive thing, however, and not easily
fought. It is dictated by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a
freezing of caste, a damming of curiousity - a hundred other factors."
                                 Hari Seldon - Azimov's "Foundation"

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 11:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Fighter Design

> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 19:48:41 -0500
> From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
> 
> Lewis Roberts made the following eminently sensible suggestion:
> 
> >I say we make the next THUDD about designing fighters.  They are pretty
> >intersting to build.  We would have to agree on a mission
> >specification.  Heavy fighter, light fighter, long range patrol craft
> >(week duration), short range patrol craft, sensor/picket fighter,
> >ground attack, but once you have one built, it is easy enough to
> >modifiy it to another mission.
> 
> 	I'm game...

Me too...but might I suggest we wait until Wildstar releases QSDS 2.0,
which (if I understand correctly) covers hulls <100 dt?

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 17:25:27 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

  Brad Vender <vender@plains.nodak.edu> wrote:
<<4.  Maybe I've just been watching Babylon 5 and other shows too often,
      but it seems to me that a small carrier with 5 to 10 fighters
      should be more effective than the equivalent SDB in performing routine
      patrols.  Especially if your concern is mostly with dealing with
      smaller ship (i.e. 500 tons or less).

      Then again, the approach to fighter carriers which don't have
      internal landing bays would be maybe cheap enough to allow effective
      fighter carriers too.>>

The MT folio adventure "Assignment: Vigilante" considers a mini-carrier
like this, out of a converted liner. I worked up a varient using the T4
QSDS rules and a 2000 Te hull, stealing liberally from high guard for
launch tubes etc. It used the systems off the standard patrol cruiser
(including the same weapons package) with some upgraded sensors and
computers and carried 15(ish) fighters. Can't remember the exact details as
it's packed away - I'm about to move house - but I envisioned it operating
with two standard patrol cruisers in an anti-piracy sweep.

The problem comes with minimum sizes of launch tubes - without these the
launch rate severely limits your operational ability to get the fighters
out quickly.

I suppose you may see merchants with grappled fighters not unlike the old
catapult merchant ships in WW2. It would be a sensible response to pirate
raids. Particularly if you travel in convoy...

- --------------- Dom Mooney (dom@cybergoths.u-net.com)---------------
"The fall of Empire, Gentlemen, is a massive thing, however, and not easily
fought. It is dictated by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a
freezing of caste, a damming of curiousity - a hundred other factors."
                                 Hari Seldon - Azimov's "Foundation"

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 19:00:12 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters and missiles too!

On Sun, 06 Apr 97 02:18:47 -0600, you wrote:

> On 04/05/97 at 04:57 AM,  shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) =
said:
>=20
> > In traveller, your 500 fighters are going to be starting from =
hundreds of
> > thousands of km away. Consider a fighter that survives to launch a
> > missile at the .1 light second range. It's still got to cross 30,000 =
km.
> > In plain sight, with the exhaust plume backlighting it every time it
> > makes a course change. And with the lasers getting *more* accurate =
every
> > meter of the way. And the effectiveness of dodging dropping every =
meter
> > of the way.
>=20
> You know, this applies to missiles too. They can certainly pull much =
higher
> g loads, but they are still going to have to cross *long* distances =
against
> weapon systems that can track and hit them. =20

Yep.  But when fired from a larger ship, these missiles are
immediately identified as the 1000 (to pick a number) targets that
they are.  Anti-missile lasers must begin dealing with that many
targets right away.

OTOH, those 1000 missiles carried by, say, 250 fighters will appear as
only 250 targets *prior* to those fighters launching those missiles,
meaning that a single hit on a fighter can effectively eliminate four
missiles (something the gunners about the target will be trying very
hard to do).

Of course, if you follow this logic back far enough, destroying the
carrier *prior* to it launching its fighters will also destroy the
fighters, which will destroy all the missiles :)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 21:18:58 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors

>  It is possible that someone have suggested this before, but wouldn't
>it be possible to use gravitic focussing for *passive sensors*?

 Not for passives but perhaps for active sensors:
The gravitic pulse need to travel along with the laserpulse/radar pulse to
focus it. Passives go the other way and the only way to do that would be if
the enemy help you by focussing his emissions for you ;)


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 21:15:41 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Energy Propagation For Sensors(Long)

The problem with your calculations (which were correct I think and
important to fathom for armchair gearheads like ourselves) was integration
times. You assume a fixed Watts/m2 per m2 of antenna at each TL right? The
problem is that as far as I know the trick with sensors is integration
time:
You collect info from your sensor over time and your collected signal
increases proportionally to time while noise increases by sqrt(time) thus
your signal to noise ratio increases by sqrt(time). The problem with this
is that the better your resolution the less time you'll have integrating
per lobe area. Astronomers, be it optical or radio, can integrate a long
time but the same can not be said for spece combat guys.

Your calculation shows however what the active sensors (idiots?) need to
know: Even with inverse squared you'll get pretty weak signals so with
inverse to the 4:th power just plain forget it! And I'm not even mentioning
the target solution you're giving the other guy buy blaring
microwaves/photons all over him.

My take is this:
Space combat is passive only except PointDefense. The problem is not
resolution of sensors but sensor collecting area and integration times.
This cuts down on combat ranges to make planets big fun obstacles to swoop
around, hide behind et c.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 19:29:08 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Fighters

On Sun, 6 Apr 1997 19:21:11 , you wrote:

> Hi guys, after a long break forced by a crashed computer screen, loss =
of hard disk and my=20
> attempts to get full time work (I succeeded), I was forced of the net =
for a while.=20
> =20
> Fighters: The problem is here we are getting bound up in the =
reality/traveller reality=20
> confusion here. =20
> =20
> Under CSC, a person can handle by defult a 2g vehical without grav =
compensators. Ok, now since=20
> we are locked into 4g by the tech level of the Imperium, we put in our =
fighter a 4g grav=20
> compensator.=20
> =20
> Now in the real world (tm), fighter pilots have g-suits that compensate=
 g-forces. I dont know=20
> what, but lets say for arguments sake we can compensate 3g.=20
> =20
> Now, what is wrong of combining all three things together? A figher =
with a person in a g-suit=20
> (which by this tech level has to be better than today, but lets just =
use 3g), that is built to=20
> handle 4g with grav comps, can now go 7g, and in an emergency can safly=
 go to 9g! Given that=20
> the best ship of the Imperium can only do 4g without use of pressure =
suits (which as far as I=20
> know has not been mentioned in cannonal sources)=20

The point is that ship combat turns in Traveller are between 16.7
(High Guard) to 30 () minutes long.  The fact that today's human
pilots can handle 9g for short periods of time cannot be applied to
such long turn burns.

OTOH, a g-suit would allow a pilot to handle violent facing changes,
translating into a higher Agility compared to larger ships (maneuver
drive ratings being equal, of course).

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 20:47:10 +0100
From: David Scott <snail@dircon.co.uk>
Subject: TL & Darrians

>*And how DID the Darrians manage to lose their TL 16 knowledge when one
> entire university survived the _Maghiz_ intact? Sigh...

I think that you are missing the difference between having the information
(and trying to rebuild your civilization) and building the technology. A
university just doesn't have the industrial facilities or staff to rebuild
a world...

David

David Scott
Snail@dircon.co.uk

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 20:34:55 +0000
From: Garry Ward <Garry.E.Ward@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Not fighters, missile boats

At 03:46 PM 4/6/97 +0000, you wrote:
> <snip>
>Fusion plus eh?  I've played with them, small plants yes, but the water
>can take up space.  I'll give it a go on the PD-1 upgraded defender and
>see what i get :).
>-- 
>Commander X
>(cmdrx@magicnet.net <or> bprankard@theiia.org)
>Creator, Maintainor, and Webmeister of "Planet X"
>(www.magicnet.net/~cmdrx)
>

And then sell it to Cleon as his first fighters, per M:0 Solving the Piracy
Problem sidebar.

Garry

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 13:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Ohpps

On Sun, 6 Apr 1997, Andrew Vallance wrote:

> At 01:12 6/04/1997 -0800, you wrote:
> >On Sun, 6 Apr 1997, Andrew Vallance wrote:
> 
> >> It appears I've sent the final draft of the newsletter to the list, rather
> >> than out for final proofing, ohpps :*). Oh well, I guess it won't get the
> >> final proofing.
> 
> >Or rather, it *will*, but from a far wider pool of editors. :)  Seriously,
> >*very* nice work...now, who do I bribe to get an editorial favorable to Ce
> >Acatl in there?
> 
> What are you suggesting??!! Surely you mean legitimate entertainment
> expenses or charitable donations :*)

Arpidol Zilznik, Ce Acatl CEO, looks puzzled, then does an abrupt
double-take as he notices for the first time the attentive group of
reporters nearby.  He clears his throat, blinks, then nods, smiling, his
composure regained.  "Oh, of course, of course.  Sorry, my sense of humor
gets away from me at times.  Do excuse me, please.  Yes, yes...so, what,
ah, particular charities is the ISBA suggesting, if I might ask?"

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 16:14:13 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: [CSC:Errata]Traveller Question: Material Costs

Eric,

Below is a forwarded message regarding your errata. 

>Return-Path: <BTRC@aol.com>
>Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 10:05:47 -0400 (EDT)
>From: BTRC@aol.com
>To: sinbad@dfw.net
>Subject: Re: [CSC:Errata]Traveller Question: Material Costs
>
>
>In a message dated 4/6/97 3:25:38 AM, you wrote:
>
><<Looks like another piece of errata for CSC.
>>>
>
>That's a tough one. The figures for armor are the ones used throughout the
>review process on gdw-beta. *ALL* the armor costs are 10x the FFS amounts.
>Armor was just too cheap otherwise. Also note that Starships uses a different
>means of computing armor values, the old "one game/two systems" problem that
>came up. Even at the costs I have in CSC, armor is not a major cost. For
>instance, on the grav tank, a very heavy vehicle, armor is only about 20% of
>vehicle cost. If I cut costs by a factor of ten, all that advanced armor
>would only be *2%* of vehicle cost. I think costs should stay where they are
>in CSC.
>
>Greg
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 97 16:01:00 -0500
From: jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN)
Subject: T4 Game Screen and UWP

  I just got mine from IG (along with additional copies of M0
  and FS) and I was looking it over - there are four digits in
  the UWP printed on the back that I've never seen:  Whatinhell
  are "Resources", "Labor", "Infrastructure", and "Culture"?
  There are _no_ rules that I am aware of for generating or
  interpreting them...

==========================================================================
Jeff Zeitlin                                      jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com
- ---
  OLXWin 1.00b  Coming soon: Netware for Nintendo

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 16:11:04 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors

At 02:38 PM 4/6/97 +0200, Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se> wrote:
>> It's largely a photon count problem... you need 10 to 1000 photons
>> to accurately detect them and time them; you can work out the beam
>> spread over the distance to the target fairly easily: assume a lens/emitter
>> diameter (say 1m), focal modifier (if you use gravitics... say TL12=5D^2),
>
>  It is possible that someone have suggested this before, but wouldn't
>it be possible to use gravitic focussing for *passive sensors*?
>

Well taking my own statement about uniform "handwaving" yes would could be
possible. But do you have any ideas on stats on a grav focussed sensor, ie
would it be a reduction in antenna size or what.


- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 14:02:09 -0800
From: rdhough@orca.bc.ca (Richard Hough)
Subject: Re: A look at the new Babylon 5 RPG Task system

Kenneth Bearden (dreamer@brokersys.com) writes:

>And, it
>looks like Marc and company are going to keep that half die in the
>revised rules, because I sure haven't heard from them about my
>system.

I hear ya, Kenneth, but the unfortunate truth is that if you are going to
stick with attribute + skill, you have got to use half-dice. This should be
painfully convincing to anyone who followed the huge task system thread
about a month or so ago. You may recall the house system I originally used
had attribute + skill target numbers and only six-sided dice. Using it in
my campaign, and some mathematically-inclined TML posters, convinced me
this just doesn't work. The problem is that the probability of success
between different difficulties is just too much.

Consider the most most common target number, 9 (attribute 7 + 1 from the
character generation, skill 1). I know that experts will have higher target
numbers in their specialties, but most target numbers will be around 9. The
probability of rolling 9 or less on 2 dice is about 84%, on 3 dice about
38%. There would be a huge difference between an "easy" task and a
"average" task and no intermediate tasks unless you go to half-dice.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 15:57:50 -0500
From: "Andrew Akins" <igor@netins.net>
Subject: Fighters

I have a question...

Is there anyone out there who has played a fleet-level combat situation?
(Like the old Trillion Credit Squadron). And if so, were fighters used? And
if so, how did they perform?

I'm no physics or military expert - but looking at the game system (both
present and past) it seems that fighters could be quite useful.

Just curious if anyone knows how they performed in Classic Traveller,
MegaTraveller, or TNE...

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Andrew Akins                                                       |
| Home: igor@netins.net - http://www.netins.net/showcase/theakins/   |
| Work: andya@cms-gt.com - http://www.cms-gt.com/                    |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| May your villages remain ignorant of tax collectors, and may your  |
| sons be many and ugly and strong and willing workers, and may your |
| daughters be few and beautiful and excellent providers of love     |
| gifts from eminent families that live very far away, and may your  |
| lives be blessed by the beauty that has touched mine.              |
|                    - Number Ten Ox, "Bridge of Birds"              |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 97 16:01:00 -0500
From: jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN)
Subject: Re: [T97#1136] TL Advancement

Dedly@aol.com writes...

T::>The expanded Legal and TL digits as presented in the RICE papers (toast in
 ::>honor of Jeff Zeitlin and the other RICE authors) IMO are an excellent idea.
 ::>Although it provides too much data for the general UPP, it is an excellent
 ::>option for refs who wish to delve further into world creation.

 Credit the old DGP World Builder's Handbook (WBH) for that;
 they're the ones that created it. I just decided that the
 standard format for RICE papers would include it.

 While I didn't include it in the RICE papers, I also worked up
 an expansion of the starport code along analogous lines.  I'll
 be starting to transfer the RICE papers, including that one,
 into Freelance Traveller over the next few weeks...

T::>It is taken for granted that Earth's development is the standard by which
 ::>civilizations on other worlds advanced technologically. This is fine although
 ::>IMO a not wholly accurate way at looking at TL advancement. IMO, it is
 ::>possible, for example, for a civilization to be really advanced medically but
 ::>lagging in military hardware. The expanded UPP for TL enables one to
 ::>differentiate this.

 ...which is why, when you're detailing a world, something like
 this is good.  Until you need it, though, you simply use the
 "high common" tech level as representing the _general_ level of
 technological achievement - If the expanded tech profile is
 generated according to the WBH procedure, it's a fair way of
 handling it.

T::>The point of my post is this: I'd like to see a more detailed version of TL
 ::>advancement across the spectrum as it appeared in the CT big black book. I've
 ::>had to make my own modifications to it based on the last 20 years of tech and
 ::>the speculations about the future it has inspired. Some areas are defined
 ::>pretty well (military hardware & jump drives) but there's no central
 ::>repository of this overrall info that I can find. I haven't seen the CSC so I
 ::>don't know if what I'm looking for is addressed there. The T4 book covers
 ::>this in little blurbs but only for society at TL11.

T::>Maybe it is up to the ref to determine this on his/her own.

 I seem to recall that in one or more of the previous
 incarnations of Traveller, or the supplemental material, there
 were some sample tables that showed what the various tech
 levels instantiated as - "Germ theory of disease", "Internal
 combustion engines", "Radio - regional range", and so on.  It
 didn't go into quite as much detail as the extended tech
 profile from WBH, but it was useful enough for
 "conceptualizing" the WBH extended tech.

==========================================================================
Jeff Zeitlin                                      jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com
- ---
  OLXWin 1.00b  Most people are afraid of being alone.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 16:06:50 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

At 05:55 AM 4/6/97 PST, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:
>> Major Snip<<<
>> Part of the above I agree with in Passive sensors should always have a
>> greater range than active sensors. The part I disagree with is the heat/IR
>> part, in T4/MT/TNE there has been "handwaving" regarding heat
>> generation/radiation in spacecraft. If we accept the "Handwaving" regarding
>> the heat build up then the IR signature of target will not be what it
>> should be by todays tech. If we do not accept the "Handwaving" then the
>> entire ship system is truly Pooched. So I for one, have to accept the
>> "Handwaving" regarding the heat generation/radiation. So with "handwaving"
>> mode engaged the IR signature will not be as pronounced.
>
>Sorry, but the "handwaving" mostly affects the heat from the powerplant
>and heavy gear. For life support reasons, most of the hulll *still* has
>to be at 300-400k, not only due to thermal leakage from inside, but
>because of "solar" heating of the hull (at typical mainworld distances.
>

So you are saying that we can "handwave" the major producers of heat but
the minor producers like life support we can not. Is a correct? Well I
would prefer a uniform use of "handwaving" for heat management/radiation,
if it can be used on power plants et al then it should "handwaving" the
life support and solar heating.

>IRAS detected *lots* of asteroids etc that were noticably *colder* than
>this, simply because of the *major* contrast with the 3k background of
>the sky!
>

Yes it can/could detect them but how accurate is the range calc?

>>>On IR, your F-117 is the equivalent of a road flare. The backgound
>>>(empty space) is at 3K. The life support areas of the ship are at 300K
>>>(read, 100 *million* times as bright). The engineering spaces and
>>>especially the engines or drive may have substantial areas at 3000k or
>>>higher (read one *trillion* times as bright as the background). 
>>
>> Yes very true, but what about the point when the IR level falls below the
>> detection threshold of the IR sensor. 
>
>Doesn't apply for a ship sized body unless it is *way* outside combat
>ranges. Pretty damn *basic* sensors well be able to pick out a ship at
>tens of light seconds. Missiles will be detectable (especially due to
>the hot exhaust plume!) at a light second or more.
>

But the missiles that I have designed use T-plates for drive then no hot
exhaust plume. Detection of target and the range calc accuracy are on
another message thread, please read it. Also check out the message on
energy propagation too.

>> A crude example would be the mark one naked eye looking at the
>> constellation of Orion, under a cloudless, night under perfect conditions,
>> the MK 1 would see the pattern of the constellation, but not the many other
>> stars that you could see the telescope or the Hubble. The mk 1 would
>> perceive the non detectable stars as blackness.
>
>So? Those stars are *light years* away. We are talking about detecting
>ships at a few light seconds or less. *Big* difference.
>

Well I was using that as an example of a bright object versus a very dim
object.

>Please note that the same "mark 1 eyeball" can detect the light
>reflected off a sphere less than half a meter across at several hundred
>miles. That is, I was able to see Sputnik I from the ground...
>

Yes but can your mk1 tell you the range to the sputnik?

>> The distance from the IR source and detection sensor factors into the
>> ability of the sensors to detect the IR source.
>
>Since the *purpose* of the sensors is to not only detect ships, but the
>larger chunks of "space junk" at ranges adequate to dodge them, and
>while they are inn equilibrium with solar radiation, it won't have
>trouble picking out ships or missiles.
>
>>>That'd be like trying to sneak up on the cargo plane while aiming
>>>landing lights at the pilot!
>>
>> But under daylight conditions using leading edge lights the carge plane
>> would not detect the approacing palne until it very close. This method was
>> tested/used during WWII on aircraft searching for Uboats and had a greater
>> success than most people know about.
>
>But that's my whole point. That trick worked because the lights made
>the plane about the same brightness as the sky behind it. In space, the
>sky is far *darker* than you can get any ship or missile to be!
>

Who says that can not make it darker look in CSC under Black Hole coating.

>>major snip<<
>> Yes this is true but with "handwaving" mode engaged the stealth possiblity
>> is very available. Ie a "Super Handwaving" mode for IR stealth, using
>> advanced forms the "Handwaving" method of heat generation/radiation
>> management.
>
>Sorry, but my take on the "handwaving" is that we need to fix ship
>design, not use its shortcomings as an excuse to violate reality in
>*other* ways.
>

But I am not trying to violate just tying for a uniform system of
handwaving. If you can "handwave" heat management why not in some areas why
no all? Any fix the heat "handwave" using real world physics is no longer
Traveller.

- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1147
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Sunday, April 6 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1148



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters
Re: Info needed (jump duration / accuracy)
Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors 
Re: Experience Points?
Re: Energy Propagation For Sensors(Long)
On fighters...
Re:Fighters vs Capital Ships
Emperor's Arsenal
Re: Fighters
Re: Submarine Fighters
Re: Grav Cities in Gas Giants
Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters
Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters
Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters
Re: Fighters and Missiles

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 15:19:04 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

 
> > The warheads might be small pellets :-)
> 
> Yes they can, but he did say it would carry "large numbers of multiple
> warheads of nukes and KKM types".

Doh!  Well, most would have to be pellets :-)  throw some nukes in
for kicks :-)

- -Merrick

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 15:16:37 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

 
> >Another very good reason: A laser does more damage the longer it is
> >trained on a particular spot. (My childhood experiments with plastic
> >toys, sunlight, and magnifying glasses proved this) If the ship rotates,
> >you force an attacking laser to distribute its energy over a greater
> >area, thus reducing penetration and hopefully, damage.
> 
> You cannot have the cake and eat it. Either spinning brings more guns to
> bear with no adverse side effects OR spinning makes the damage less severe.
> If spinning lessens damage then you assume beam lasers who definately would
> be adversely affected by spinning.

Not toatlly true.  Spinning brings more of _my_ guns to bear, and
also makes the damage done _to_me_ less since the other guys beam
dwells on a given spot for a shorter period.

Offensively, spinning brings more  guns to bear.

Defensively, spinning reduces damage done to the spinning ship.

- -Merrick

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 16:20:39 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

At 10:22 AM 4/6/97 -0600, Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com> wrote:
> 
>> 10,000 warheads !?!  This isn't a missile, it's a small destroyer!
>> I'd like to see the schematics for designing a MIRV that could carry
>> and release that many individual warheads over the course of a
>> fraction of a Combat Turn :)
> 
>The warheads might be small pellets :-)
>

Yes a good portion of them are KKM cannisters pellets but the nukes have a
volume of 0.0007 m^3 and mass of 0.008Mt

>> =46irst off, releasing 10,000 warheads at 36g acceleration 30,000km away
>> from the target wouldn't leave them enough time to scatter, meaning
>
>I think he meant that the missile would have a closing velocity of
>36 hexes (a 36g burn)---that's 600 km/s.  The "warheads" are
>dispersed *after that acceleration to the target.
>

Yes thank you for understanding my misstatement and put in the right words,
I think?<G> What was tying to say is that the missile has been accelerating
at 36g's for several turns, I think?<G>

>If I read this right, it's just a bb missile.
>

To a large degree yes.

>-Merrick
>
>
- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 18:21:46 -0300
From: sboyko@nbnet.nb.ca (sboyko)
Subject: Re: Info needed (jump duration / accuracy)

>shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) said:
>Anyway, right now, I'm interested in two items:
>
>1. Jump duration and/or accuracy
>	So far all I've found is the stuff that says "X parsecs" and
>	"one week" in all the rules, and the 120 + 2d*6 duration rule
>	from Starship Operator's manual. What other references are
>	there?

The MegaTraveller Journal, #2 has an "official" note in the Q&A section
about jump duration.  The question posed there was essentially "if jump
times are so random, how can a fleet commander get all of his ships into a
system at once?"

Joe D. Fugate answered it, and suggested that if you double the jump
preparation time, you change the jump duration from:

124 hrs + (2D x 6 hrs)           (Starship Operator's Manual, vol 1)

         to

167 hrs + (2D x 0.1 hr)

yielding a pretty uniform time.  Oddly enough, the SOMv1 suggests that jump
exit "may occur as early as 120 hours" - how they get that from 124+(2Dx6)
I don't know. :)

Given Joe's formula for double jump prep time, I have to ask why anyone
would NOT spend twice the time (especially at higher TL where it only takes
minutes).  Trade routes would be far more predictable;  you could easily
say "I'll be there in 192 hours +/- 1" rather than "oh, a week plus or
minus a day".  You lose the chance of an early arrival, but IMHO
predictability on a regular merchant run is better than sometimes getting
there early.


>2. creating "communications routes"
>	The first edition of the "little black books" had a table for
>	determining if there was a "route" between systems based on the
>	distance and starport type. I can't find my copies, if someone
>	else can, please post.

Book 3 mentions trade routes in its subsector mapping chapter.  There is no
table in my book;  they essentially say "draw them in where they make sense."

Steve Boyko

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 16:30:33 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors 

At 01:03 AM 4/6/97 -0800, George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com> wrote:
>
>Sam Thomas wrote:
>>George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com> wrote:
>>>Almost right.  Done properly, pulse laser rangefinding can have
>>>fixed error out to arbitrary distance in a vaccum. [...]
>>
>>Ok then that would mean that Error1 value would be correct for active laser
>>sensors?
>
>No, it means that you know the actual flight time of the photons to
>within 1e-6 sec or so, no matter how far it was, so you have a fixed
>error of no more than 3e8/1e6 or about 300 meters range.
>Once you get stable timing you can measure 0.010033 sec as
>accurately as 3.155071 sec, which existing atomic clocks
>and optical setups attached to them can do right now...
>[You can do better for short range by superimposing a pattern
>on the laser freqency and doing interferometry to measure the
>shift very precisely, but you need a pattern repeat length of
>at least the maximum light time of flight if you do that, and that
>gets more or less impossible to work with for times of flight over
>a 10km or so distance].
>
>
>>By the way do you have the knowledge/tools to figure out at a range of 10
>>hexes, at 100 meter sphere, how big would your receiving antenna array have
>>to be. Also how much power/watts would the laser have to be?
>
>It's largely a photon count problem... you need 10 to 1000 photons
>to accurately detect them and time them; you can work out the beam
>spread over the distance to the target fairly easily: assume a lens/emitter
>diameter (say 1m), focal modifier (if you use gravitics... say TL12=5D^2),
>frequency/range factor (100), use the stuff in FF&S pp 127, gives you
>a range of roughly 25,000km before beam spread ocurrs.  [this is based
>on the actual physics involved].  Munge that to 30,000km for simplicitys
>sake and you get a range of 10x "short" range, so beam spread is a factor
>of 10^2 of the lens diameter, or 100 meters across).  Figure out how much
>of the laser energy in the ranging pulse is on-target by dividing the
>vehicle cross sectional area (say, simplify to (length/2)^2) by the spot
>area (pi * (100/2)^2 ~= 7500 m2).  You cheated and say a 100-meter sphere,
>so in this case that value is unity.  For smaller craft this is an important
>factor in detectability/ranging though.  You can do a rough photon count
using
>the formula e=h/wavelength (check a physics book, mine is in a box under
>several hundred pounds of rocket design and parts... I believe that the
>value of planck's constant h is 6.6e-34 in this units system... so a single
>photon with wavelength 1e-8 (far UV) has about 6.6e-26 J; a 1-joule pulse
>would be 1.5e25 photons).  Since the target surface is uneven and will
>reflect in all directions, you have to assume that you'll intercept roughly
>(collector area) / (hemispherical area at this range) of the photons.
>At 10 hexes, that's half the area of a sphere 300,000,000 meters radius,
>or 4 * pi * (r^2) = 1.13e18 m^2.  A one-square-meter detector mirror
>or lens system would intercept 1.5e25/1.1e18 or about 1.4e7 photons
>from that theoretical 1-joule pulse with those optics and can easily
>determine range (by about a factor of 1e4 more than needed).
>

Hmmm.. the reason I stated that the target was sphere is because the
circular shape will only reflect back a very small portion of the pulsed
energy lets say only .1 percent. How many photons would that get back to
the receiver?

<<snip>>
- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 15:01:13 -0700
From: "Rob Gillingham" <Farpoint@netcom.ca>
Subject: Re: Experience Points?

- ----------
> From: Jeff Harvey <jharvey@nlci.com>
> Subject: Experience Points?
> Date: Thursday, April 03, 1997 12:29 PM
> 
> Okay, it's the rookie referee again, with another question that is
> obvious to most of you, but could use a little elaboration for myself.
> 
> 	Is there a system for awarding experience points to players?  I guess
> that I would just like to know how other referees award experience
> points, and what is a relative average of experience points to award per
> gaming session.  Again, any thoughts or information are appreciated.
> 
> 						Jeff

i use a system sort of based on Cyberpunk.... were you need:

current level X10 points to gain your new level 


eg... 40 points to get to lvl 5 i give them Role Play points
and skill points... skill points can only be used on the skill they
recieved them on.... and Role play points can be saved to raise 
Attributes or to add to exisiting points in a skill to raise that skill1
level
so it's a banking system...... i give them around 5 points in a short
game...
up to 10 points.... i try not to give more then have the points as RP's and
spread the others over the skills they seemed to use the most or got the
best
success with.....



				- Rob

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 17:31:23 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Energy Propagation For Sensors(Long)

At 09:15 PM 4/6/97 +0100, anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman) wrote:
>The problem with your calculations (which were correct I think and
>important to fathom for armchair gearheads like ourselves) was integration
>times. You assume a fixed Watts/m2 per m2 of antenna at each TL right? The
>problem is that as far as I know the trick with sensors is integration
>time:

The tech level I used was X, for undefined so that it hopefully show the
issues unrelated to TL.

It could be stated that each TL has progressively lower detection threshold.

I was not using integration time as factor I was trying to keep in example
in its simplest form. But you are correct about integration times, but I am
not really up to speed on the use of that in Astronomy.

>You collect info from your sensor over time and your collected signal
>increases proportionally to time while noise increases by sqrt(time) thus
>your signal to noise ratio increases by sqrt(time). The problem with this
>is that the better your resolution the less time you'll have integrating
>per lobe area. Astronomers, be it optical or radio, can integrate a long
>time but the same can not be said for spece combat guys.
>
>Your calculation shows however what the active sensors (idiots?) need to
>know: Even with inverse squared you'll get pretty weak signals so with
>inverse to the 4:th power just plain forget it! And I'm not even mentioning
>the target solution you're giving the other guy buy blaring
>microwaves/photons all over him.
>
>My take is this:
>Space combat is passive only except PointDefense. The problem is not
>resolution of sensors but sensor collecting area and integration times.
>This cuts down on combat ranges to make planets big fun obstacles to swoop
>around, hide behind et c.

Ok I agree with your final summation.


- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 17:28:33 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: On fighters...

	Sent the following on Friday; it doesn't seem to have got through
to the list...


	I think that I'm about ready to weigh in on the side of the
nay-sayers on the fighter debate.  I think the arguments about long-range
detection, direct-fire energy weapon point defense, peashooter armament,
heavy armour on the capital ships and absence of a speed advantage for the
fighters means that Lucas-esque small fighters would be stunning wastes of
men and materiel.

	I think that what might be worth investigating is more of a gunboat
concept; stuff a big PA gun, a laser or two, and a sandcaster into the
smallest possible hull (say 200Td or so); this gives it a long-range weapon
with punch enough to give a hard target a hard time, and some defensive
capability.  It minimizes the amount you have to spend on hull, systems,
and crew per big gun.  The idea is to spend the most money possible on
*effective* offensive weaponry and M-drive performance, and sacrifice size,
accomodations, and endurance in order to do so.

	This would be the wet-navy equivalent of mounting a 16" naval gun
as a spinal mount on a boat about 75' long.  Wouldn't work in the water
because of waves & such, but you get the idea; cheaper to build a bunch of
small hulls, power plants, etc, so you get more big guns in the water for
the same amount of money.

	You could use smaller yards to build them in, and you could put
more units out faster than if you were building big suckers.  They'd be
attrition units, designed for wolfpack tactics.  Any of you SFB players
recall PF's?

	As far as the statement in the T4 manual that Fusion+ fighters are
what gives the Third Imperium its edge, let's recall that this would
probably be against opponents some TL's lower.  Fighters might not be
effective against capital ships, but might be quite effective at commerce
interdiction, generally raising hell, infantry support, terrorizing
civilians, and beating up on lower-TL opponents. They might prove very good
at extending sensor baselines too.  And let's not forget that this is
Milieu 0; we don't even have rules for building ships over 5,000 Td yet.
So the 100,000 Td dreadnaughts won't be a problem right away...

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 17:29:26 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re:Fighters vs Capital Ships

	Re-posting this... don't think it got through the first time.


Ethan Henry wrote:
[snippage]
>
>Imagine, you're a Vilani officer aboard the ZS Eneri VIII battleship.
>It's a 10,000Td egg-shape, with Jump-2, maybe 3Gs of acceleration (all that
>you can compensate) and a whopping big meson gun, the biggest you can hold.
>(The Vilani like spheres for ship hulls, but a sphere is the worst thing
>in the world to put a spinal mount in. Eggs are a nice comprimise for those
>old-fashioned Vilani). What other weapons are there? Some missles maybe.
>Maybe a few point defence weapons, anti-missle lasers, but not much other
>than the spinal mount. There's no use for anything else - it isn't able
>to damage the enemy. Military doctrines is to close into spinal mount
>range on the enemy as fast as possible then hit them before they hit you.
>(Hopefully you have a longer range and more armor). That's it.
>
[the fighters attack]
>Now, this sort of situation wouldn't last long - maybe a century until all
>the old ships get destroyed and ship yards have had time to turn out
>ships that are bristling with a mixture of small, medium and large weapons.
>In that century though, the Sylean Federation becomes the Third Imperium.
>
>That's why fighters will beat big ships IN YEAR 0. General comparisons
>of capital ships vs fighters are too vague to be meaningful.

	I don't quite buy this one, Ethan... if my neighbours are building
ships with inadequate point defenses, all I'm going to start doing is
building my ships with many, many missile racks apiece, and nuke my
opponents to bits before they get into spinal mount range with massive
missile waves.

	If there are going to be drones or missiles out there, there are
going to be point defenses... and if there are going to be big spinal
mounts out there, they're going to have very heavy point defenses, to keep
their gigacredit investment from being fried by a nuke missile that cost a
few megacredits, tops.  Thus, the fighters get fried when they try and play
with the big boys.

	The more I think about it, the more I think that any admiral
sending fighters in against capital ships would be out of his mind.
Fighters against merchants, fighters against interface fighters, fighters
against ground targets, yes, but not against capital ships...  Now a swarm
of the gunboats I proposed a few posts back against capital ships, yes, but
not fighters...

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 18:57:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: ImpGrAdmrl@aol.com
Subject: Emperor's Arsenal

In reading the stats for the weaponry displayed in The Emperor's Arsenal, I
am struck by an incredible fact.  Are energy weapons such as the Plasma
Cannon Man Portable also subject the the 3 dice maximum damage inflicted in
personal combat as well?  It is hard to believe.. I can understand the view
that for most weapons, being dependent of kinetic energy, may have such a
rule applied as a projectile may often simply pass through the target without
optimally passing on its energy to damage the target.  However, for weapons
such as these (the old high energy weapons), most of the energy used to deal
damage is thermal energy, and I'd think targets would receive a bulk of that
(if hit).
    Am I missing something?
    Do people even agree?
    If this 3D rule is still in effect for even these weapons (which are
admittedly military grade weaponry), how can it be justified?  Play
balance??.. Heck, if you charged someone armed with one of these weapons, you
do deserve to get fried!
    This also leads to about handling the effects of other weapon types which
will be developed futher down the timeline of the Third Imperium (the New
era, and the Far Future).  Neuronal weapons as well as disintegrators (which
ignore armor according to Traveller lore... the MegaTraveller Encyclopedia)
are likely weapons which must inflict damage well beyond the 3D limit.
   Commentary anyone?  ........... Charles

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 16:57:28 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Fighters

 
> Is there anyone out there who has played a fleet-level combat situation?
> (Like the old Trillion Credit Squadron). And if so, were fighters used? And
> if so, how did they perform?
 
Using HG (abstracted movement), fighters end up being missile
batteries (IMExperience).  If they have some lasers, they can screen
against other fighters and small ships.

On the other hand, in HG, the space would've been better used by
more missile bays and lasers (not tying up valuable pilots (an issue
in TCS if nothing else).

> I'm no physics or military expert - but looking at the game system (both
> present and past) it seems that fighters could be quite useful.
 
Not vs. capitol ships, they just do surface damage---useful, but
nothing special compared to missile bays.

In a more movement oriented game, they allow you to spread missile
batteries over a larger volume of space.  This can at least be a
threat to pickets (in addition to being a picket force themselves.

In TNE (BL and BR (_fixed_ BR)) they are aagin useful as missile
platforms.  In BL (and fixed BR) getting a Lock on a missile happens
about 5-15% of the time, so 85% of missiles get through PD (!).
This is without any major bashes to the rules.  Fighters are also
*extremely* difficult to detect if they evade (er, Lock).

As a result, they make a little more sense.  On the other hand,
trying to make a high-g fighter in FFS that is small enough to
remain really hard to spot is difficult (mass gets above dtons*15
very fast on these guys).

- -Merrick
 

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 17:03:26 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

At 05:34 am 04/06/97 PST, you wrote:
>In mail you write:
>
>>> In TNE you can
>>> have more then 6G acceleration.
>>
>>    In TNE, big ships as well as fighters can have more than 6G
>>    acceleration.  This is why there are no real fighters in Trav, only
>>    "gunboats".  If you want fighters to be feasable, you'll need to make
>>    some rules up that give them an advantage over big ships.  The
>>    current rules treat them exactly like big ships, only smaller.
>
>"Big" ships can't operate effectively at accelerations higher than
>their g-comp rating. Fighters *can*. 

	Like I've said before, WHY can't "big" ships operate at excess Gs? True, I
can't do damage control, or go to the head, but neither can the fighter.
I'm not going to operate at excess Gs during normal cruising, I'm going to
pull them at exactly the same time as the fighters will--to save my butt,
kill the bad guys, and break their toys.

	The only advantage the fighter will have is being able to slew faster, due
to that nasty Omega^2 x Radius law.
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 15:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Grav Cities in Gas Giants

> Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 05:30:06 PST
> From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
> > In a message dated 4/4/97 8:15:40 AM, Craig Berry wrote:
> >
> > <<You're at the bottom of a huge gravity well,>>
> >
> > Are you? How much does the gravity fall off between the "surface" of a gas
> > giant and the upper atmosphere?
> 
> It falls off via the inverse square law. And gas giants don't really
> have "surfaces". What we seen in telescopes *is* the upper atmosphere!

Above the effective edge of the atmosphere (call it the 1-millibar level),
gravitational acceleration does indeed fall off as the inverse square of
distance from the center of the planet.  Below that, though, it's a bit
more complicated, as at each radius you have some of the planet's
atmosphere "above" you (at a greater radius from the center), and hence
not contributing to gravitation on you.  In the limit, at the center of
the planet, the acceleration due to gravity is *zero* -- but of course,
you have other difficulties to contend with there... :)

Since far from the GG effective g is (nearly) zero, and at the center it's
zero again, it follows that g reaches a maximum somewhere in between.  For
Jupiter, this point is about 200 km below the cloudtops.  It's a wide
maximum, though -- effective g remains in the 2+ range for a band of about
1000 km, with the cloud deck in about the middle.

Gravitational *potential*, though, is a separate issue.  This is a measure
of (basically) how hard it is to escape from the planet's g-field.  A very
dense earthlike world might have a surface gravity in the 2+ range (not
likely, but it could happen), but escaping from it would be much easier
than doing so from Jupiter, as the total mass (and hence depth of the
g-well) would be far less.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 16:43:43 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

At 05:21 am 04/06/97 GMT, you wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Apr 1997 19:57:14 -0700, you wrote:
>> 	Again, trying to analyze the physics of space combat based on either TV
>> shows, or old WWII movies will completely mislead you. Those TV shows were
>> created to show off the special effects wizards capabilities, and the guys
>> writing the scripts watched old WWII movies too. Babylon-5 style fighters
>> in Traveller would require immensely more powerful weapons available to
>> small ships.
>
>Babylon 5 is a good start however, with space combat scenes that use
>Real World(tm) physics (ie: properly vectored movement).  They could
>also spread things out so that the combatants are tens of thousands of
>kilometres apart, but that would be pretty boring to watch (although
>rendering time would be sped up immensely :)

	It's a good show, I agree. In fact, Babylon 5 is the only television show
I care enough to watch that I tape it. 'Course, there's only about three
shows I watch anyway, but still.

	The problem with the Babylon 5 model is that the weapons on the fighters
are an order or two of magnitude more powerful than the ones in Traveller.
In B5 it is possible for a fighter-sized laser to penetrate the armor on a
big ship. In Traveller, it just isn't. A laser that fits into a "classical
fighter" (i.e. a one-man, on the order of 10disp tons), won't go through
meters of armor. All it'll do is scrape things off the hull IF it hits
something vital and unprotected. In B5, fighters also seem to have more
acceleration than big ships. In Traveller, not.

	The biggest flaw in the B5/Trav comparison is the range of combat. Given
realistic sensors (read: sensors we can build now), a Traveller ship can
detect the fighter quite a ways out; B5 tends to seem to fight at visual
range--it's a TV SHOW! They want to show off their special effects. Given
lasers that can fire every other SECOND (ROF800), you're dead long before
you get into visual range. 
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 16:55:05 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

At 11:15 pm 04/05/97 -0600, you wrote:
>At one light second (300,000,000 meters) with a range calc accuracy of say
>0.000001 you would have a range deviation of + or - 300 meters. With that
>kind of accuracy the target would not have to evade.

	The range deviation isn't necessarily that big of a deal. What I care
about is the angular deviation. Draw a line from where I am to my aiming
point. As long as the target is actually on that line, who cares if he's
300m closer or further away.

>>
>>	Again, trying to analyze the physics of space combat based on either TV
>>shows, or old WWII movies will completely mislead you. Those TV shows were
>>created to show off the special effects wizards capabilities, and the guys
>>writing the scripts watched old WWII movies too. Babylon-5 style fighters
>>in Traveller would require immensely more powerful weapons available to
>>small ships.
>>
>
>Fighters can be effective against large warships but you can not use
>missiles that cost fractions of megacredit and carry a single warhead. The
>missile will not be small, it will not be cheap and will carry large
>numbers of multiple warheads off nukes and KKM types. If a missile
>traveling at 36g's, releases 10,000 warheads at say 30,000km from the
>target, assuming the missile is armored enough to get past the PD stuff,

	And how big is this missile carrying 10,000 battleship-armor-cracking
warheads, and able to accelerate at 36G's? And how much fuel does it carry,
so how long can it actually thrust at 36G's? And how big is your fighter,
to carry missiles like that? I thought so--it certainly looks NOTHING like
the "classical" 10T one-man fighter. More like a several hundred disp ton
System Defense Boat.

	PS: Releasing at 30,000km leaves the PD plenty of time to nail individual
warheads. Unless you waste this supermissile on a dinky little patrol boat.
But a battlegroup will be able to allocate plenty of fire on the warheads
that are actually aimed at a specific ship. Assuming the captain's too
stubborn to maneuver. Accelerating at 36G's towards a non-evading target,
you get a closing speed of 1,296 km/s. Releasing at 30,000km range leaves
me 23 minutes to track all the warheads, project which ones are going to be
close to my non-evading ship, decide I'm an idiot for not evading, or shoot
the dangerous ones.

	Can I have the contract to build these missiles for your Navy? 

>the target PD will not get it all, most of it will get to the target. By
>the way some of the math inclined it the warheads are traveling at a
>velocity of 36g's at 30,000km, how long will it take the warhead to reach
>the target area? 

	36Gs aren't a velocity, they're an acceleration. The velocity of the
warheads will depend on what the velocity of the missile was when they were
released. And how will your warheads deal with an evading target once
they've been released from the missile? It takes a while to travel 30,000km.


- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 17:16:01 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

I meant to say:

> maneuver. Accelerating at 36G's

	FOR A FULL HOUR (60 minutes)

> towards a non-evading target, you get a closing speed of 1,296 km/s. 
>Releasing at 30,000km range leaves me 

	60 minutes to kill the missile, plus 23 seconds

>to track all the 
>warheads, project which ones are going to be close to my non-evading 
>ship, decide I'm an idiot for not evading, or shoot the dangerous ones.

	Given that we're using high-tech computers here, and 800ROF point-defense
turrets (and lots of them, since they're fairly small), I'm not yet concerned.

- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 17:11:38 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Fighters and Missiles

 
> Now, I have a question. In the T4 combat rules, the fire control rating
> limits the number of targets engaged. So I would have thought that the only
> way to succeed in hitting is to overwhelm the target with multiple attacks
> simultaneously, a la 2300AD's Star Cruiser Game. But, defensive fire
> against missiles appears to be exempt from the number of targets limitation
> (p119). So the question is "Why are missiles not counted against the number
> of targets engaged limit in T4?"
 
The T4 rules are broken :-)  Actually, a lot of the talk regarding
anti-missile fire was hashed out on the beta list (more even than
here!).  What happened back in the TNE days was that we decioded to
make some "sub-hex" range bands.  These were totally abstracted, but
depending on the type of missile, it would have to get closer and
closer to detonate---that or actually hit the target physically.

The idea was that under 30,000km (one hex in BR/BL) weapons would be
allowed to fire uopn multiple targets witha single _turret_mounted_
weapon---but only if such a target was on an intercept course.  This
was since the target has to try to hit, so it moves in a highly
predictable way.  So missiles that aren't det-lasers have a much
reduced chance of reaching the target.

> If they were, it would give fighters a chance. Do the rules just handwave
> this through, or am I reading it wrong? Are there close range PD sensors
> not mentioned...
 
Fighters could operate at ranges above 0 hexes quite well in most
rules as published (or even bashed).  What happened was that in a
recent set of calculations I did for the beta list, it came out that
it was harder to miss than we had thought.  Looks like a non-evading
target would be hit approaching ROF number of times per turn, at
very long ranges.  As you up evasion gs spent (assuming perfect use
of such gs to avoid being hit) it gets slightly harder to hit until
some range where it drops off rapidly.  It might actually map well
to a HG-like set of range bands :-)

The end result of these 0th order calculations is that fighters
within about 1 ls would get hit if they were Locked (both actually
likely at that range in BL/BR, too).

- -Merrick

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1148
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Monday, April 7 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1149



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Fighters
Re: Space combat at the strategic or grand tactical level
Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters
Re: TLs of Imperiums I, II and III
Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters
Grav cities _on_ Gas giants
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Re: A look at the new Babylon 5 RPG Task system
Re: T4 Game Screen and UWP
Re: Vegans
[Traveller Answer] Materials Costs
Re: Fighters vs Capital Ships
Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors
Homepage
Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 23:23:29 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Fighters

On Sun, 06 Apr 1997 03:07:15 -0400, you wrote:

> jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay) wrote:

> <<<Excuse me, but I think the war was still raging during "the last few
> times we attacked him".
> >>>
>=20
> Wrong. Look it up. Bush was in office when the war was over. Clinton
> used the US Navy to launch over 100 cruise missiles when Iraq moved =
some
> units in the Krud demilitarized zone back in Sept 96. Read the news.
> This happened at lease two separate times. My point is that now the =
area
> over Baghdad is too dangerous for fighters. During the war the Air
> Defense had been neutralized and so we could fly with only the guns to
> worry about. As long as you stay above 10,000 feet, no problem. Now =
Iraq
> has rebuilt much of what had been destroyed, missiles and radar and
> computer systems.=20

You're right, of course.  Forgot about those.  And I never disagreed
with your statement regarding "Baghdad-- a bad place for the USAF" :)

> > However, during the war we DID NOT sent any aircraft over Baghdad =
until
> > the air defense system was taken down. And that includes the F-117.  =
We
> > took it down with some very neat tricks prior to the war starting.
>=20
> The war officially started on Jan 17, 1991 at 1:30 AM with the launch =
of
> Tomahawk cruise missiles from ships in the Red Sea and the Gulf.=20
>=20
> Prior to that the special forces had several teams in Iraq doing some
> very neat things, clearing the way for the cruise missiles and stealth
> bombers that would follow.=20

I guess it all depends on whose definition of "the start of the war"
we use.  By Iraq terms, the "war" started long before Jan 17th, with
its invasion of Kuwait in an attempt to create a unified Arabic state
(united against the "evil" western powers :)

> My point stands: The skies over Baghdad are too dangerous for fighters,
> UNLESS you do something to knock down the Air Defence.=20

Can't argue here, although there was never any real need to send in
the F-117A's immediately anyways (ie: the UN knew exactly what it was
doing and didn't have to resort to any risky maneuvers such as sending
in aircraft into uncleared airspace).
=20
> But it does bring up some interesting ideas, this is a great model for
> how the 3I would be able to bring many hostile planets into the fold.=20
> =20
> Use several behind the scenes tricks to make the 3I appear even more
> powerful then they are, make an example of one system, use major PR to
> skew the opinion, and then watch as more boarder states fall in line
> without a fight.=20

Considering that we are talking about subjugating entire worlds with
populations in the millions or trillions, this would probably be the
best way.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 21:16:15 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Space combat at the strategic or grand tactical level

On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Glenn M. Goffin, Esq. wrote:

I see the point your making, but in tradtional wargames there has always
been a conflict of realism vs gameplay.  Generally what suffers is the
fog of war as its difficult to play,

"Look i wonder why the German Panzer army is massing on the french border"


They only consolation is that one of the strengths of the Computer
game/wargame is that it can simulate the fog of war easily. 


> I've been following our interesting discussion of space combat at the tactical level for 
> a while, and it has led me to ask about how other referees handle the level above.  
> Traveller posits that interstellar communication is only as fast as the ships that 
> travel from star to star.  This is analogous to the age of sail, before the advent of 
> the telegraph (let alone the short-wave, or communications satellites).  
> 
> In those days, one of the major facets of naval warfare was finding the other side's 
> fleet.  Small, fast, scout ships were used for that purpose, as were spies in ports.  
> Nelson couldn't just ask the Admiralty's intelligence office to printout the satellite 
> photos showing the location of the French fleet; his counterpart, on the other hand, 
> could and did have up-to-the-minute information about the disposition of the Argentine 
> fleet during the unpleasantness in the Falklands.  
> 
> Fifth Frontier War attempts to simulate this fog of war issue by requiring the fleets to 
> plot their movements several turns in advance.  This probably matches the orders given 
> to fleet commanders in real life, but, still, both players can see the map and actually 
> know whether Jewell has fallen or not.  Other than having three maps, a referee, and two 
> players with only their own forces and known enemy forces on the map, how have you 
> handled this issue?  Even that is flawed, because a commander on Rhylanor won't know 
> what's happened on Efate for a long time, even though the commander on Efate knows 
> immediately.  Getting fifteen people together to play 5FW is a big scheduling problem; 
> maybe there is computer network solution?
> 
> --Glenn
> 
> 


	It's intuitively obvious!

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 00:25:33 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

On Sun, 06 Apr 1997 11:12:40 -0500, you wrote:

> At 08:18 AM 4/6/97 GMT, jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay) wrote:
> >On Sat, 05 Apr 1997 23:15:15 -0600, you wrote:
> >
> >> At one light second (300,000,000 meters) with a range calc accuracy =
of say
> >> 0.000001 you would have a range deviation of + or - 300 meters. With=
 that
> >> kind of accuracy the target would not have to evade.
> >
> >Range isn't critical, since any target along the path of the beam will
> >be hit, regardless of any "range deviation".
>=20
> Hmm... Range is not critical? Only if the angle of attack is perfectly =
in
> sync with firing laser, example:
> =20
> My missile is approaching the firing ship at a bearing of say 90 =
degrees,
> your PD laser is five meters + elevation and 10 meters aft down the =
ship's
> main axis. Your pd laser will firing at angle so range will be factor.

You've lost me.  What difference does it make WHERE on my hull my
lasers are located, as long as they can point at your missile?

> Also the laser is trying to focus the beam to deliver the precise =
amount of
> energy to cause maximum damage. With out accurate range data the =
focusing
> of the laser beam will be off, resulting in less penetration/damage.

I doubt that a laser, capable of delivering damage out to 300,000 km,
would have any noticeable reduction in damage just because the beam is
focused 300m in front of or behind where I believe the target to be.
At those ranges, the damage falloff would be less than 1% (and that's
being overly generous).

> >> If a missile
> >> traveling at 36g's, releases 10,000 warheads at say 30,000km from =
the
> >> target, assuming the missile is armored enough to get past the PD =
stuff,
> >> the target PD will not get it all, most of it will get to the =
target.
> >
> >10,000 warheads !?!  This isn't a missile, it's a small destroyer!
> >I'd like to see the schematics for designing a MIRV that could carry
> >and release that many individual warheads over the course of a
> >fraction of a Combat Turn :)
> >
>=20
> Yes I would be happy to see the schematic for a working fusion plant =
too.

A working fusion plant is beyond our current engineering technology...
MIRVs are not.  Since you never mentioned what tech level your missile
was based on (and what yield the nuclear warheads were), I simply had
a hard time visualizing a device that could release all 10,000
components efficiently inside of the time frame necessary.  A 36g
missile accelerating over a few turns would have a substantial
velocity... leaving little time to scatter its ordnance (to increase
their likelihood of survival) within 30,000km of the target.

> Well remember that a combat turn in space is 10 minutes. There are

No problem here, except that you specified deployment inside 30,000km.

> >First off, releasing 10,000 warheads at 36g acceleration 30,000km away
> >from the target wouldn't leave them enough time to scatter, meaning
> >that one laser shot could hit them all simultaneously.  Besides,
> >what's to prevent me from knocking out this large (how big is this
> >thing?) missile coming straight at me BEFORE it gets a chance to
> >deploy its warheads?  ONE minor hit and your out 10,000 warheads just
> >like that, because now they can't even deploy.
>=20
> Well then I release them at an earlier point then, to give them time to
> scatter.

Ok :)

> The missile in question has CSC armor value of >50. That means
> that a Point Defense laser will not penetrate its armor. It also has a
> agility DM of -25 to be hit.

I am not familiar with CSC or agility DMs as high as -25.  What system
are you using for space combat?
=20
> >I'm sorry but this is just too silly.
>=20
> Too you it appear to be silly, it can be designed using current rules =
for
> vehicle design ie CSC/VDS.

CSC??? VDS???

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 17:17:42 -0800
From: "Stuart L. Dollar" <sdollar@pop.goodnet.com>
Subject: Re: TLs of Imperiums I, II and III

On  5 Apr 97 at 16:21, Mark Seemann spewed:

> Second Imperium:
> -2431  TL 9
> -2408  TL 10
> -2398  TL 11
> -2210  TL 12
> 
> Third Imperium:
> -1776  TL 10
> -650  TL 11
> -150  TL 12
> 300  TL 13
> 700  TL 14
> 1000  TL 15

Hmm.  Several worlds in the Imperium made it to TL 16 in the last 
years of the 3rd Imperium, immediately prior to and during the early 
years of the rebellion.  Some Hiver worlds made it to TL 17.  

Perhaps we could extrapolate that a few such worlds in the RoM made 
it to TL 13?  Not enough to matter, but enough that the odd surviving 
mothballed artifact might be miraculously overlooked by millions of 
people for 2000 years, but was discovered by an enterprising PC? <G>

Stu
Stuart L. Dollar               sdollar@goodnet.com
- ---------------------------------------------------
Member of CORE.  Co-Designer of Milieu 0 and other 
Traveller products.  
"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." 
- -Thomas Jefferson

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 21:38:13 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters

On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Robert Flammang wrote:

This is true, and it is also a hole in my agrument I acknowledged.  The
only thing i can think of is that the cost of a 6g Battleship would outway
the advantage.  This is not so with fighters.

>    Hi.
> 
> > From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
> 
> > This is not economical though, which is the whole point of fighters.  The
> > American navy could (theoritically) build a Battleship (HS) which could
> > travel as fast as a speed boat - but why would they?  Its redundent - no
> > military advantage - and above all else, its expensive, VERY expensive.
> 
>    You're right, of course.  Speedboats are practically standing still
>    as far as modern naval warfare is concerned, so having that kind of
>    speed would not give the warship any tactical advantage. If the
>    American navy could build a warship that was as fast as a fighter
>    though, it would have /great/ military advantage. 
> 
>    If you want Traveller fighters to be an analogue to modern fighters,
>    you'll need to change the rules to give them much greater speed than
>    the warships they fight with.  Traveller's current rules encourage
>    designers to make all of their fighting ships with 6G acceleration;
>    this is very cost effective and advantageous with the design and
>    combat rules published so far.  You'll need to modify these rules to
>    make fast warships uneconomical, and keep fast fighters cheap.
> 
>    -Rob
> 
> 


	It's intuitively obvious!

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 20:00:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: nrunner@ix.netcom.com (Archie T.)
Subject: Grav cities _on_ Gas giants

LIL GeH3 (!) and PH3, SIH3. in guessing this is where your cites are. 
the bottom 30-60% is _DENSE_ liquid _METTALIC_ H2, He. It mettalic 
because its under so much pressure. It gives GG's their vast radiation 
belt.
    Its a trade off: thick walls, in building, or ALWAYS burning your 
grav modules. jupiter is ~2.5 G's at the top of its atmosphere, and the 
gravity goes down by the cube root of the radius IF it had constant 
density: it doesnt. theres also some boyance if you want to make a 
city-submarine that can handle the pressure, but most supply ships 
couldnt. A special type would be needed. Or, elevate your city. Cities 
on the top 1% of the atmosphere also have a better view :)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 19:14:37 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

Are all the old weapons that we are used to in the EA?

You know--the gauss rifle, et al?  All the weapons that we've grown 
up using in Traveller?

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 19:14:36 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: A look at the new Babylon 5 RPG Task system

> Kenneth Bearden (dreamer@brokersys.com) writes:
> 
> >And, it
> >looks like Marc and company are going to keep that half die in the
> >revised rules, because I sure haven't heard from them about my
> >system.
> 
> I hear ya, Kenneth, but the unfortunate truth is that if you are going to
> stick with attribute + skill, you have got to use half-dice. 

And I hear you too.  I know, more than most from the tests that I've 
done on both KBv1.1 and KBv2.0 about the half dice being a necessary 
evil.  That's one of the reasons I used them in KBv1.1.

KBv2.0 is simply a better system.  It doesn't use half dice.  The 
percentages for all difficulty levels and all target numbers are 
good.  And, it give more creedence to using a character's skill in a 
particular area and not just his natural ability.

You are right.  If you are going to use only attribute + skill with 
six sided dice, you have to use the half die.

Why not kill two problems at once--the half die and the 
skill-not-meaning-that-much problem--by using KBv2.0?

Or even another system that that might make more sense than the half 
awkward half die system?

 Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 18:32:31 -0800
From: "Stuart L. Dollar" <sdollar@pop.goodnet.com>
Subject: Re: T4 Game Screen and UWP

On  6 Apr 97 at 16:01, JEFF ZEITLIN spewed:

> 
>   I just got mine from IG (along with additional copies of M0
>   and FS) and I was looking it over - there are four digits in
>   the UWP printed on the back that I've never seen:  Whatinhell are
>   "Resources", "Labor", "Infrastructure", and "Culture"? There are
>   _no_ rules that I am aware of for generating or interpreting
>   them...

Hmm...could be for a future product.  <G>

Seriously, these are the Economic Extensions (EE) to the basic UWP 
for Pocket Empires, which is, I believe, in the process of being 
printed as we speak.  

Resources is a raw measure of the economic potential of a 
world/system as expressed in a single digit.  Primarily useful to 
Pocket Empires.

Labor?  A number that works as an exponent of Population.  A measure 
of the productive portion of a world in interstellar terms.  Again, 
primarily useful to pocket empires.  

Infrastructure?  Refers to the development of a world's 
transportations, and communications networks.  Also somewhat useful 
as a gauge of just how evenly technology is distributed across a 
world in physical/wealth terms.

Culture?  Refers to the economic expectations of the world's 
citizens?  How much butter they prefer instead of guns.  Again, 
primarily useful to Pocket Empires.  

As for how to generate them, until Pocket Empires comes out, I'd tell 
ya, but then I'd have to kill ya.  <G>

Stu
Stuart L. Dollar               sdollar@goodnet.com
- ---------------------------------------------------
Member of CORE.  Co-Designer of Milieu 0 and other 
Traveller products.  
"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." 
- -Thomas Jefferson

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 23:08:26 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Vegans

On Sun, 6 Apr 1997, bri wrote:

Actually for simplicity sake i changed the vegans to human looking
matriachel green skin race:)  I did this because i have a picture of
green skinned woman ... necessity drive invention!

>  I was wondering if anyone out there knew where I could get a picture of a
> Vegan(s)?
> 
>  Thanks in advance
> bri <bri@teleport.com>
> 


	It's intuitively obvious!

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 97 21:52:50 -0400
From: Derek Wildstar <wildstar@qrc.com>
Subject: [Traveller Answer] Materials Costs

eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch) wrote:
> I was tinkering with ship design this weekend and ran into an errata
> concerning the price/cost of materials.  In CSC Superdense is listed as
> 0.140Mcr/M^3, but in both Starships and FFS SD is listed as 0.0140MCr/M^3!
> In fact, all the material costs are 10 times higher in CSC.  

Yes.  Greg developed his materials table for CSC after the FF&S numbers were
built into the first version of QSDS and Starships.  Also note that the
toughness numbers are different.  The formula for calculating the armor
value based on thickness is different, too.

> So, officially, which is the errata?  Is CSC 10 times too expensive, or are
> Starships and FFS in error? 

I'll let you know as soon as I know.  This is a question that's currently
being resolved with Marc Miller and IG; in all likelyhood, T4 Deluxe will
use the CSC numbers, resulting in a slight price increase for starships (but
this isn't final yet; Dave Golden and I are awaiting a decision from Marc).

For the time being, please continue to use both CSC and QSDS/Starships as
written - they're two separate systems, and don't generally mix well.  Some
amount of "conversion" is possible (a rule of thumb was provided by Greg in
CSC, and more detailed rules appear in _Emperor's Arsenal_; I've also posted
on the subject to the TML in the past).

I know that Imperium Games and Marc Miller are aware of the problems created
by having two systems trying to co-exist in one game, and are working toward
resolving the problem.


Guy "wildstar" Garnett
Traveller Answer Team

wildstar@qrc.com
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                     In the Far Future

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 23:33:02 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Fighters vs Capital Ships

On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Ethan Henry wrote:

Ahhh, i like this.  Despite all my training i forgot context as well in my
initial supposition (which has started this massive debate - sorry!).  I
like your example.

> 
> (It's Friday so I can spare a little time to throw some fuel on the fire...)
> 
> I think it's difficult, if not impossible, to analyze the relative
> merits of fighters vs capital ships without having a context to place
> the conflict in. (My wife is a religous studies grad student, so I've
> learned lots of neat concepts like 'context' from stuff she studies.)
> 
> Let's get specific.
> 
> Why, in T4, is the fighter said to give the new Third Imperium an
> advantage over other interstellar empires?
> 
> First of all, why are the Syleans the only ones with fighters? Fusion
> plants have a very large minimum size and the invention of fusion+ allows
> small fusion plants for the first time, ever. (We all knew that though).
> 
> OK, so, why would fighters be an advantage? I'll present one mostly-
> handwaving argument.
> 
> Historically, in almost all fields of battle, the upper hand has gone to
> the side that has redefined how the battle is fought. The victor is almost
> always the one who fights the battle on their own terms. Gunpowder in
> Europe. The German blitzkreig in WW2. Submarines versus surface convoys.
> The advantage doesn't last forever - this is an important point. But there
> is an advantage for a while and often it's long enough to have won a lot
> of battles if not the entire war (OK, so not the blitzkreig in that case).
> 
> How would the introduction of space fighters in the sub-100Td range have
> changed the field of battle in Year 0?
> 
> Well, what would have been there before? Big capital ships. With BIG guns.
> There probably would have been a period of escalation in the size of ships
> and in the size of spinal mounts, the only things that could damage these
> big ships. As somebody else mentioned, no one wins a war in space - wars are
> won on the ground. So, you'd have big ships carrying troops to take over
> systems. You'd have big ships with big spinal mounts attacking them. You'd
> have big ships with big spinal mounts and armor defending the troop transports.
> Those empires that can build bigger ships and more of them will be able
> to win space battles. It is, however, really expensive to build those
> giant things. There isn't a choice though - the smallest power plant you
> can build is, what, 250Td? You might as well exploit economies of scale
> and build the biggest damn ship with the biggest damn gun you can think of.
> Side bonus for meson spinal mounts - you can do rather accurate orbital 
> bombardment with it. In Year 0 there aren't very many deep meson sites
> to give you trouble. Atmospheric combat is handled by fighters specifically
> designed for it (and powered by MHD turbines probably). Ground combat
> is again, handled by ground combat vehicles - again, there isn't a power plant
> effective enough to power small grav vehicles yet. You'd see vehicles with
> a disturbing resemblance to modern combat vehicles. (Note: This is what
> T4 canon tells us. We have to partially disregard the descriptions in MT
> books like COACC because there isn't a viable power source for grav vehicles,
> even though the gravitic technology exists, until TL12.)
> 
> Enter the Sylean Empire and Fusion+. Suddenly you can build small, fast,
> high-endurance space fighters.
> 
> So, what changes?
> 
> Imagine, you're a Vilani officer aboard the ZS Eneri VIII battleship.
> It's a 10,000Td egg-shape, with Jump-2, maybe 3Gs of acceleration (all that
> you can compensate) and a whopping big meson gun, the biggest you can hold.
> (The Vilani like spheres for ship hulls, but a sphere is the worst thing
> in the world to put a spinal mount in. Eggs are a nice comprimise for those
> old-fashioned Vilani). What other weapons are there? Some missles maybe.
> Maybe a few point defence weapons, anti-missle lasers, but not much other
> than the spinal mount. There's no use for anything else - it isn't able
> to damage the enemy. Military doctrines is to close into spinal mount
> range on the enemy as fast as possible then hit them before they hit you.
> (Hopefully you have a longer range and more armor). That's it.
> 
> One day, you engage the enemy (a strange looking vessel without a spinal
> mount - easy target!) and before you manage to close in close enough
> to loose your meson gun, the enemy ship disgorges a couple hundred ships
> that are about 50td each. Huh? What do you shoot them with? You've got a
> few missles, but not enough. You have a few point defence lasers, but not
> that many. What the hell is powering those things? You've got the meson
> gun, but it can't come to bear fast enough on those things (which are probably
> pulling 6 or more Gs, with pilots in acceleration tanks). Sure you're
> heavily armoured, but they can get real close and punch through the soft 
> parts - probably even firing right into the main meson firing tube!!
> This is not looking good. You'd run, but they can chase you. Hopefully you're
> not too close to a gravity well to jump...
> 
> Now, this sort of situation wouldn't last long - maybe a century until all
> the old ships get destroyed and ship yards have had time to turn out
> ships that are bristling with a mixture of small, medium and large weapons.
> In that century though, the Sylean Federation becomes the Third Imperium.
> 
> That's why fighters will beat big ships IN YEAR 0. General comparisons
> of capital ships vs fighters are too vague to be meaningful.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Ethan
> -- 
> ehenry@magma.ca                                  http://www.magma.ca/~ehenry
> 


if you are not ready to die then you are not ready to live.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 21:55:18 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors

At 09:33 PM 4/6/97 -0400, Derek Wildstar <wildstar@qrc.com> wrote:
>> George Herbert wrote:
>> > A one-square-meter detector mirror or lens system would intercept
1.5e25/1.1e18
>> > or about 1.4e7 photons from that theoretical 1-joule pulse with those
optics
>             ^^^^^
>
>Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net> wrote:
>> Hmmm.. the reason I stated that the target was sphere is because the
>> circular shape will only reflect back a very small portion of the pulsed
>> energy lets say only .1 percent. How many photons would that get back to
>> the receiver?
>
>George provided that calculation for you in his reply.  I've quoted his
>answer (above) and underlined the number with carets (^).  You can substitute
>the appropriate figures for other ranges into George's calculations.
>

Well to you he might have but I will do it from may end then.

>If you've never seen the notation before, "1.4e7" means the same as
>"1.4 x 10 ^ 7"; the "e" notation is more compact and clearer when working
>with flat-ASCII text (it's also the notation that's input and output by most
>heavy-duty scientific computer programs).  The "e" stands for "exponent of
>10", and replaces the "x10^" part of the number.
>

Why thank you for pointed that out WAG!!! Some of are not as dense as
yourself or ourselves.<G>.

By the bay did you get look at Emperor's Arsenal? The nuke section could be
interesting eh.

- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 21:16:18 +0000
From: "Tim Reynolds" <tim@premier1.premier.net>
Subject: Homepage

Well it has taken me for ever to do it but I have a ISBA homepage.

http://www.premier.net/~tim/ISBA.HTM

It is done for the most part and is ready to be expaned as the ISBA 
moves forward. I warn you there are no nifty graphics because I havnt 
figured that out yet and havnt found any wroth while anyways.

I do have to questions:

Who has the THUDD page now I checked out Paul's page and its not 
there and I dont have any other clues to its location I think it is 
on one of the Berrys page.

Second will some one send me a complete list of all the spread sheets 
for, Traveller espically the Ship design, and where they are located.

Thanks 

Tim

home
tim@premier.net
http://www.premier.net/~tim

work
tim@gpasf.com
http://www.stratfor.com

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 22:48:14 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

At 04:55 PM 4/6/97 -0600, goldendj@mail.pcisys.net wrote:
>	The range deviation isn't necessarily that big of a deal. What I care
>about is the angular deviation. Draw a line from where I am to my aiming
>point. As long as the target is actually on that line, who cares if he's
>300m closer or further away.
>

yes more properly stated angular deviation would have effect. Well lets try
an example of the my point:

Your ship is firing at a missile/fighter that is not attacking your ship at
all. The longitudinal axis of your ship we will call the Z axis. The other
two will called X and Y. Y being the going from keel to superstructure, and
X going from port to starboard. Your course of your ship is 0 degrees, you
are not evading or rolling. The target(read missile)is approaching your
ship at 90 degree angle on the x axis. But the targets line of travel is
below the X plane of your ship, it would pass underneath your ship by 1km.
The target/missile is evading and doing three times your speed. Lets say
that the Y axis angle is 135 degrees at the point you are going to fire.
Your firing battery(1 turret) is located along the starboard side at the 90
degree point on the X and Y axis. Your Firecontrol system will be firing a
100 meter diameter pattern in order to have the best chance of hitting the
target.(yes I know it an arbitrary pattern) But the range error in this
case off by 300 meters, ie your FCS has placed the target 300 meter ahead
of it self. Your FCS will be basing its TOT(Time On Target) upon this. The
end result being that when the laser pulses get there, they will be 250
meters ahead of the target/missile, net result no chance of a hit.

Now if my target/missile was attacking your ship at 90 degrees on the X and
Y axis yes the range error will matter little. But who says that missiles
can not perform the maneuvers of current day antiship missiles, like a
popup tactic or a TankBreaker? maneuver popping up and detonating above the
target.
>>>
>>>Snip<<<
>	And how big is this missile carrying 10,000 battleship-armor-cracking
>warheads, and able to accelerate at 36G's? And how much fuel does it carry,
>so how long can it actually thrust at 36G's? And how big is your fighter,
>to carry missiles like that? I thought so--it certainly looks NOTHING like
>the "classical" 10T one-man fighter. More like a several hundred disp ton
>System Defense Boat.
>

It is the minimum canon size that Thruster plates can be mounted on. ie 10
dt. No fuel needed as current design status, using storage cells, duration
at this point 2 hours at full acceleration of 36g's, longer if it goes
slower. Yes the missile carrier will not be a 10 t fighter, but refer the
missile as torpedo and the torpedo carrier as a "Torpedo Boat" "ducking
thrown objects"<G>

The design status is waiting the calculation of the pen of the nukes using
the nuke types from Emperor's Arsenal. 

>	PS: Releasing at 30,000km leaves the PD plenty of time to nail individual
>warheads. Unless you waste this supermissile on a dinky little patrol boat.
>But a battlegroup will be able to allocate plenty of fire on the warheads
>that are actually aimed at a specific ship. Assuming the captain's too
>stubborn to maneuver. Accelerating at 36G's towards a non-evading target,
>you get a closing speed of 1,296 km/s. Releasing at 30,000km range leaves
>me 23 minutes to track all the warheads, project which ones are going to be
>close to my non-evading ship, decide I'm an idiot for not evading, or shoot
>the dangerous ones.
>

Ok but in another post you said the closing time would be 60 minutes 23 secs?
But what if deploy warheadsat 3,000km or even 300km. With a armor value of
CSC >50 it will shrug off any hits if you get any remember the agility DM
is -25 to be hit. 

OOps correction the torpedo "Bubba" is 30g's. This not the one that will do
that but it looks like "Little Bubba" will.

<<<snip>>>

- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1149
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Monday, April 7 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1150



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Not fighters but maybe small craft
Re: AWACS Starships and Zhodani
Re: A look at the new Babylon 5 RPG Task system
Re: Vegans
Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters
Re: Vegans
Re: Color of the sky...
Fighters - Revisted II
Fighters - Revisited III
Fighters revisted
Re: A review of the new Babylon 5 RPG, for those who care [LONG]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 97 20:35:09 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Not fighters but maybe small craft

On 04/06/97 at 12:31 PM,  Jeff Brawley <brawleyj@UWSTOUT.EDU> said:

> You know what I'd call these missle boats???  

> SDB's

> Everything that was said about these missle boats, is applicable to SDBs.
> Or at least the smaller ones.  

Of course, you're right. They *are* small SDB's...with an *offensive* role.
;->

> Overall I like the idea of an offensive SDB, sort of a Fleet Missle Boat
> FMB or whatever.

How about "PT-109 in space?  Or maybe "MaHale's Navy?" ;->

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 19:50:06 -0700
From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Re: AWACS Starships and Zhodani

>From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)

>I think he's referring to the fact that TP gives the Zhodani a comm
>channel that can't be intercepted by the Imperial forces. Nor can it
>easily be jammed.

This makes me wonder whether the Zhodani -- or others who use psionics, like the 
Droyne and certain Vargr cultures -- have developed telepathic "jamming" for use when 
fighting other psionically-capable forces. 

- --Glenn

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 03:46:00 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: A look at the new Babylon 5 RPG Task system

On Sun, 6 Apr 1997 14:02:09 -0800, you wrote:

> Kenneth Bearden (dreamer@brokersys.com) writes:
>=20
> >And, it
> >looks like Marc and company are going to keep that half die in the
> >revised rules, because I sure haven't heard from them about my
> >system.
>=20
> I hear ya, Kenneth, but the unfortunate truth is that if you are going =
to
> stick with attribute + skill, you have got to use half-dice.

Unless you substitute TBP's task system :)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 23:11:19 -0500
From: Robert Beck <beck@mail.all-net.net>
Subject: Re: Vegans

>On Sun, 6 Apr 1997, bri wrote:

>>  I was wondering if anyone out there knew where I could get a picture of a
>> Vegan(s)?
>> 
>>  Thanks in advance
>> bri <bri@teleport.com>

There are two good examples bri. One is the MT module Arrival Vengeance. In
it, there is a picture of a Vegan talking to two Dolphins. It's not a full
body shot, though. In Traveller Chronicle #10 (That right Harold?) there is
a picture of two Vegans and one of their beasts of burden. It could be 11.
I don't remember. Hope that helps.

Rob.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 23:08:54 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

At 12:25 AM 4/7/97 GMT, you wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Apr 1997 11:12:40 -0500, jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay) wrote:
>
>> major snip<<<
>> The missile in question has CSC armor value of >50. That means
>> that a Point Defense laser will not penetrate its armor. It also has a
>> agility DM of -25 to be hit.
>
>I am not familiar with CSC or agility DMs as high as -25.  What system
>are you using for space combat?
> 

I am using CSC for design and combat fewer unresolved issues.

>> >I'm sorry but this is just too silly.
>> 
>> Too you it appear to be silly, it can be designed using current rules for
>> vehicle design ie CSC/VDS.
>
>CSC??? VDS???

CSC=Central Supply Catalog
VDS=Vehicle Design System contained inside CSC.

- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 00:54:40 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: Vegans

bri writes:

> I was wondering if anyone out there knew where I could 
> get a picture of a Vegan(s)?

   Try: http://dopey.siscom.net/~hdhale/COE.htm

Regards,

Harold
(sometimes known as War)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 07:35:17 -0700
From: Harald Budschedl <Harald.Budschedl@mag.linz.at>
Subject: Re: Color of the sky...

Chris Griffen wrote:
> 
> Okay, all you chemists and astronomers out there, here's a question for you:
> 
> I've got my players going to Bruyere in Deneb sector. The atmosphere is
> very thin, tained, with my handy dandy World Builder's Handbook determining
> that the taint consists primarily of sulphur compounds. Bruyere orbits a F0
> V primary, so it's a pretty bright white main sequence star. The planet is
> only 40 percent water, so it's likely to be fairly dry, too. And yes, since
> it's the system mainworld, the planet is in the habitable zone.
> 
> Question: what color would the sky be in broad daylight? At sunset? I think
> I've got night solved. <g>
> 
> Sky color is one of the details I always like to include in my descriptions
> to give them the feeling that they're _not_ on a Terran Prime world. Of
> course, the fact that they'll be wearing compressors and protective suits
> should help accomplish that too!
> 
> Any suggestions would be appreciated.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Chris

I've seen, what the others have guessed, so I'll leave my guess here,
too.

I'm no astronomer, but I would tend to a darker sky (because of the thin
atmosphere) and the light-spectrum tending more to a yellowish-orange
taint.

CYA
Buddy

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 02:11:25 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Fighters - Revisted II

On Sat, 5 Apr 1997, Leonard Erickson wrote:

> In mail you write:
> 
> >>> Also, i would assume that a fighter could get to its top speed a
> >>> whole lot faster than a large ship.
> 
> >> That's all a matter of Gs of acceleration, "top speed" in space is
> >> fairly close to the speed of light, so there isn't any real top
> >> speed.  However, beyond certain speeds it becomes difficult to
> >> engage in space combat, since no matter how much accleration you can
> >> manage, you're still pretty much traveling in a straight line.
> 
> > This is an incorrect assumption.  Top speed is whatever a space craft has
> > been built to go upto.  Im sure light speed isnt one of them (mayb absurd
> > speed:).  Each tech level logically would have an upper limit of the
> > absolute fastest speed it can build engines to.
> 
> You need a course in physics. 

Probably, but more than likely I was misread:)

> 
> In space, objects in motion *keep* moving. If you fire your engines, it
> changes your vector (speed and or direction). Your "top speed" is
> solely a matter of how *long* you can maintain acceleration. 
> 
> Velocity = Acceleration * Time
> 

I understand this.

> So a ship that can accelerate at 6g for 10 minutes, and one that can
> accelerate at 1 g for 60 minutes both have the same "top speed". And
> they'll both have to be rescueed if they reach it, because they will
> have used all their fuel to reach it and thus can't slow down!
> 

So practically, the 10 minutes/6g combo is the "faster" ship, correct?

If i have one car which can do 0-100km in 6 seconds, and another that can
do 0-100km in 10 seconds, but both have  atop speed of 250km/hour then car
A is tha faster car.  The reason it is faster is because of the way the
engine is built (and of course other factors, but the engine is primary),
which is what i was getting at, vaguely admitedly (well, not to me:), but
the same thing.


Im out like bell bottom trousers,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Communist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't
speak up because I wasn't a Jew.  They they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.  Then they came
for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.  Then
they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
  - Martin Niemoeller, on the Nazi Holocaust

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 02:47:02 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Fighters - Revisited III

On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Bob Sanders wrote:

> So, the question is do Space Fighters make sense?
> We will agree to disagree, and that is fine (g) because you like
> fighters and want to use them in your universe. So do I, but they do not
> work. I will pull a few examples and lets further the discussion.


Understood.  Though im begining to believe there effectiveness in a
traveller universe is limited.

:)

>=20
>=20
> Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au> wrote:
> >>>
> SNIP
> Unless economics are really different in the Imperium as opposed to
> earth
> today, it will definetly be more cost effective to build a high speed,
> well armed, highly maneuvrable 10t Fighter as  opposed to a Dreadnaught
> with the same capabilities. =20
> SNIP
> <<<
> I agree with the first point, but just because you can build them does
> not make them more effective :)
>=20

True, but im weighing them as opposed to a capital ship.  Im just listing
economics as a very important advantage.

> Battleship.  I disagree.  Stick a fusion bomb or Fission torpedo on
> these
> babies (the equavilent to a Torpedo) and they could wreck havoc on any
> heavily armoured vessel.
> <<<
> Nuclear Dampers, and destroyed before they get close. And in traveller,
> we have only those little factor X missles. I have not seen any large
> ship killing mssiles. Even Factor 9 misslies (that are too large for
> fighters) will only do minor damage to Big ship. That is a problem with
> the game design IMHO, and that is why James and I are working to fix it.

Good!

> babies would make them an irresistable force.  No matter how big a
> battleship is or how heavily armed or armoured it is no way it would
> have the Point Defense (AA) to handle such an onslaught.  No one could
> conceivably argue (effectively) that a battleship could handle 100 or a
> thousand fusion torpedos/missles.
> >>>
> Um, sorry. I do not care how many targets you put out there IF we are
> talking about two equal forces. One has BB, the other CV and fighters. =
=20

True again, at this point i had digressed from the initial scenario and
started talking practically.  In modern warfare (this Century)  planes=20
are used en-mass.

>=20
> Lets look at some basic assumptions:
> First, today=92s navy.
> For many years the Navy has had to defend the big CV. Why? Too easy for
> missiles to destroy.
> But the CV has survived, Why? Because the aircraft carry missiles. Big
> ship killing missiles. (On another point, the old USSR was very
> concerned when the old US Battleships were returned to service, because
> the missile war heads had been reduced and would no longer do much
> damage to those ships)=20
> This ability to stand off and launch big missiles is what makes the
> fleet focused on the CV. You have the horizon to hide behind, the
> fighters do not have to get close, and weapons that can hurt big ships.=
=20
>=20
> In Traveller, fighters have no weapons that can cripple any big ship.
> Those factor 1 and 2 missiles will not even dent the sand thrown up by
> any capital ship. The EM energy alone could blind most fighters small
> computers and sensors. (In space you have to have huge antenna for
> resolution) so you would have to get VERY close in space. That means
> that the big ship has all the time in the world to pick you off.
> Starting at about 150,000 km fighters would be targets. The faster they
> go to close range, the more predictable their path would be, easier to
> hit.=20
>=20

This seems to be the case in the traveller universe, but im begining to
wonder how "realistic" this is.  It coudnt be that difficult to build a
nice ship killing (small) weapon - could it?  Also, missiles seem to be
weaker then the real world.

> >>>
> After the battle, whos won both militaraly and economically?  The guy
> who
> lost the 100,000t Battleship or the side that lost 100 fighters?  Dont
> forget, lives are generally more expendable then hardware.
> <<<
> Whoa!!! DO NOT SAY THAT IN FRONT OF ANY PILOT!!
> Not ever :)  Why do you think the United States does everything in its
> power to rescue downed pilots. They are the least expendable part of the
> combination. That type of thinking is what ruined many air forces
> throughout history.
> Years of training, building of morale, vs one aircraft. No contest.
>=20

See my other post concerning this.  I was speaking within the context of
the argument, fighters vs battleriders.  The loss of the battlerider with
all its crew is worth more than the loss of a few pilots.=20

[convincing examples snipped]

> Every ship that his been hit during the past twenty years, to the best
> of my recollection, has been hit by missiles.  The British did get hit
> by some bombs (dropped too low and did not arm, a good thing, if they
> had gone off the aircraft that dropped it would have been damaged), but
> the most devastating damage was done by missiles. Also the Argentine air
> force had to fly at 10 - 30 feet off the water to avoid being destroyed.
> The missile systems and guns have gotten too good so you have to stay
> down low and avoid radar coverage and get mixed up in the clutter. Where
> do your fighters hide in space?

True.  So we come to the crux of it all, apart from low intensity battles
(or soft targets) even modern aircraft are defunc?  I find it hard to
believe, its all the more worse since the last serious naval conflict was
over 50 years ago.

> Most actions do not involve 100s of aircraft today. Only if it is a
> major war. 100s of missiles are another story. I was in a naval exercise
> back in the 80=92s where we launched over 300 (SIMULATED) missiles at the
> main Russian fleet. NONE got through. If that had been aircraft, NOBODY
> would have returned. Try and convince that next crew to get into the
> fighters.

WHich is the point, we would be talking about a major war only, where the
protagonists are rougthly equal, not a regional war where the attacker
(USA) is vastly superior to the foe (Iraq)

>=20
> >>>
> So they are cost effective.
> <<<
>=20
> Not with those odds. Only if they can return and launch the next wave of
> missiles that can actualy do something.
>=20

That goes without saying.

> In Traveller that means that you will have to stand off with ship
> killing missiles that DO NOT EXIST and launch at targets locked on with
> sensors that DO NOT EXIST while hiding behind some horizon or cover that
> DOES NOT EXIST to be effective.  So in Traveller, as we understand the
> technology and weapons, fighters are reduced to being a small boat with
> machine guns that somebody else mentioned.=20
>=20

Which is a shame, it couldnt be that hard to introduce a weapon of
substantial power.  Sensors are a moot point, fighters dont need adavanced
sensors, just good targeting combined with smart weapons.  Horizons i
think may be offset by some keen weapons and high manvr., which traveller
also seems to lack.

> In Closing:
> I will not, nor will anyone else stop you from using fighters. They are
> lots of fun and many people will believe in them based on Star Wars and
> other shows. However, within Traveller rules, and our best guess about
> reality, (such as that is:) fighters are about as useful as pigs in
> space.
>=20
> So, Launch the fighters and fire the wave motion gun!! Its a game!
>=20

Fair enougth, i just still wonder about the "reality" part, since they
seem to be fairly useless in traveller.=20

Anyone want to do a simulation?  Have a capital ships vs equal tonnage or
cost of 10t to 50t fighters? (no carrier).

Im curious to see if they actually would do any damage at all.


Im out like bell bottom trousers,

michl

electric RAIN=09=09=09=09=09http://www.electric-rain.net/


"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Communist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't
speak up because I wasn't a Jew.  Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.  Then they came
for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.  Then
they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
  - Martin Niemoeller, on the Nazi Holocaust

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 01:35:03 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Fighters revisted

On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Andrew Vallance wrote:

I liked the points you made Andrew, and i agree with most, but heres my
thinking.

> >Effectiveness
> >- -------------
> >How effective would a fighter be?  I think quite effective.  Militaraly a
> >10t fighter is more expendable then a 100,000t Battleship.  Also 10t
> >fighters would be easier to replace.
> 
> The fighter is, the pilot isn't. This one fact is a vital consideration.
> To be effective a fighter would require a very well trained crew. They
> just don't have the size to mount the sensors of a big ship and their
> crews aren't large enough for any slack.

They dont need the sensors of a big ship.  It would be wastage.  They
would be ordered (im assume) to go to cordinates x,y,z and engage detected
hostiles.  They would just need targeting, and even this may be redundent 

> 
> >Fighters would be quite versatile as well.  Fighters could more easily
> >(and cheaply) be used for planetary warfare, so there dual role would be
> >valuable.
> 
> So can a battleship, it sits up high with good defenses against planetry
> based fire and shoots down. Very effective. A fighter on the other hand
> has to go down to where atmospheric interceptors (more effective than
> general purpose space fighters) can engage.

True.  Im also making an assumption here that in taking a world you dont
want to obliterate it.  So a battleship (unstreamlined cause its cheaper)
wouldnt have the finese for targeting as a fighter would.  Also
battleships couldnt give much support to troops on the ground (close
quarter support) as opposed to "we want this sector nuked" which the
battleship would be handy for :)

> 
> However I would agree that in interface work fighters would be in their
> element. If your going to meet fighters anywhere it will be here.
> 

Good!

> Carrying a weapon is very different from being able to target with it.
> The biggest weapon in the world is of little use if you can't hit with it.
> In space combat the velocity are going to so great that you're going to
> have very short engagement times. Therefore you are going to need some
> very effective targeting and control; and there will be a minimum size craft
> required to mount it.

Okay, lets assume that the weapon is a smart device, has inbuilt
targeting. Maybe its so smart that it homes in on transponder signals.  No need for
excessively complicated targeting on the fighter itself, just on the
weapon.  What do you think of that?

> 
> >Also, the ability to mass hundreds and maybe even thousands of these
> >babies would make them an irresistable force.  No matter how big a
> >battleship is or how heavily armed or armoured it is no way it would
> >have the Point Defense (AA) to handle such an onslaught.  No one could
> >conceivably argue (effectively) that a battleship could handle 100 or a
> >thousand fusion torpedos/missles.
> 
> A battleship (100,000Td+) could quite concievably handle several hundred
> missile attacks and probably absorb quite a few that get through. Plus
> battleships wouldn't operate individually, they'd operate as part of an
> intergrated task group with significant small escorts, greatly increasing
> their survivability.

Yes of course, but the orginal poster used 1 battlerider vs an equal
tonnage of fighters, which i think is wrong (and i stated so) but i
remained within the confines of the argument.

> 
> >After the battle, whos won both militaraly and economically?  The guy who
> >lost the 100,000t Battleship or the side that lost 100 fighters?  Dont
> >forget, lives are generally more expendable then hardware.
> 
> Most certainly not, especially for pilots! Hardware is expendable, lives
> are not. Pilots are always an elite, you can't throw them away, if only
> for the morale considerations. Remember in space the recovery rate for
> pilots who's fighters are lost is going to be close to nil.
> 

Of course it is a waste, let me qualify.  Im speaking within the confines
of the argument.  Losing a hundred pilots (excessive, but usefull for
illustration) is pitful compared to the destruction (and loss of life
thereof) a battlerider.

Also, pilot scarceness is culturally linked as well as resource linked.
Germany in wwII had no real problem in finding pilots, nor did japan (they
sacrificed hundreds by the end of the war).  The soviet union and the USA
also didnt have extensive problems with pilot acquisition, while England
did.  

Im assuming that the opposing powers are of equal resource strength (large
empires perhaps?) and wouldnt have a great problem with training new
pilots - which still doesnt justfy wasting them though.

> The hstorical reason for the supremacy of the carrier is very simple, it
> can be summed up in one word: Range. A battleship is capable of absorbing
> far more damage than a carrier, can carry far better defences and can
> fight in conditions which will leave a carrier floundering. The only
> advantage the carrier has is range. A battleship can engage targets maybe
> 40Km away, a carrier 400Km away. In space this advantage is much less.
> Plus much of the aircrafts advantages depend on recoving a significant
> number of lost crews, which isn't going to happen in space.

True.  So perhaps we should remould the argument.  Im willing to concede
that carrier based massed fighters maybe redundent, but what about planet
based or mixed arm battleships (battleship carries a small squadron of
planes)?

> 
> Oh and BTW the last classic battleship dual was in the Pacific in 1944.
> 

Hmmm, have to check that, Gualdalcanal? (mispelled for sure)

> 
> A big ship can put its critical systems at its core. Making them all but
> impossible to hit. You will be able to hurt a ship by hitting its vulnerable
> surface systems, but your unlikely to kill it. What you can do however is
> soften it up for an easy kill by a bigger ship.

True, but its more convenient to place sensors and the bridge in usually
susceptable places.  Also, the spinal mount can be susceptable to attack
as well as the engines.  The destruction of anyone of these things will
badly affect the battleships combat ability.

> >Why do you say that?  What are you comparing it to? Have you flown in a
> >battleship?  All you can logically compare it to is a naval battle.  In a
> >naval battle the number of attacking craft are usually in the hundreds, if
> >there land based attacker, there in the thousands.  I can tell you now,
> >that the planes will come back with a lot less damage then the completely
> >destroyed capital ship.  The aircraft will fight again, but the ship will
> >not.
> 
> The fighter/ship analogy is not a good one, a far better one is FAC/ship.
> space fighters don't have the massive speed advantage. Throw 100+ Osa II
> against a Iowa plus escorts and the Iowa wins. Space fighters won't be able
> to do the hit and run that modern aircraft rely on against ships.

So, the assumption (which may well be right - i havnt played traveller in
years, and never played the current version) is that Battleships, in the
main, no matter what size, will have 6g acceleration?

So, no fleet in the known universe can outrun an equal tech fleet?  You
can never have a manevreability advantage over another vessel?  It doesnt
cost excessively much to equip a cruiser or higher vessel with 6g manvr.
engines?

Now, im sorry, but if thats how traveller is now, i think thats wrong.
Also, if thats the case, why would you build anyship at all without 6g
acceleration?  Why would there be a slow boat and a pinnance? why doesnt
every ships in the starship manual have 6g acceleration?  Its not
consistent with the arguments presented here.

What do other people think?  

> Historical examples of surface ships vs carrier where the surface forces
> won:
> Scharnhorst and Gneisenau against Glorious
> Japanese against the TF77 at Samar
> 
> Historically carriers lived in dread of being engaged by surface forces,
> that's one of the main reasons why their escorts where heavy with cruisers
> and battleships. The mere mention of a surface task force nearby was
> enough to make even the most bull headed carrier commander (Halsey springs
> to mind) pack up and run. When carriers are engaged by surface forces, the
> carrier losses. Carriers rely almost entirely on their ability to engage
> the enemy before they can be engaged.

Which is the exact point i was making when i mentioned the carrier vs
surface ship.  Of course a HS vs CV would win, but thats an unrealistic
comparison in the sense that you have deprived the CV of its "air" power.

> >Not to mention the fact that two sides are rarely evenly matched, so your
> >example is fraudelent.
> 
> "Be there firstest with the mostest" (I can't remember who said that, but
> it does pretty much sum up warfare).

Probably an american :)

Its the core of warfare, Napleon knew it, Mainstein knew it, now you know
it.  Apply as much force as you can to the enemies weakest point.

> Yes, but battleships would carry comparitevly few big guns, most of their
> weaponry would be smaller weapons to keep fighters and other smaller ships
> at bay. The big guns would be truely impressive, but they would have a
> very respectable secondary armarment.

Which, again i will concede.  I was seperating a HS weapons as they are
today, and have been for many years - Big Guns used for shore bombardment
and capital vs capital combat and PD weapons used for anti air warfare.

Also, if i remember corecctly the High Guard rules had a limit on the
number of turrets that a vessel could have, is this still true?  If so,
then fighters could outgun Battleships in equal tonnange/cost (?)


Michael "Solomani" Mifsud

:)

if you are not ready to die then you are not ready to live.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 06:35:15 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: A review of the new Babylon 5 RPG, for those who care [LONG]

On Sun, 6 Apr 1997 01:50:19 +0000, you wrote:

> Can you go into a little more detail about the rest of the game? =20
> What do you think of it?  If you don't want to respond to the list=20
> (and I think you should), then e-mail me in private.

I'll post to the list (for those that might be interested), but I'll
try to keep it short.

Physically, TBP is available as a 196 page softback printed _entirely_
in colour on standard glossy-stock paper.  Since the paper is slightly
thinner than that used in the T4 hardback, the book feels somewhat
more delicate (this feeling comes from fondling the durable Shadowrun,
Wraith, and T4 hardbacks too much :)  I am somewhat surprised that--
based on the huge following of the television series-- CEE didn't
consider selling a hardback version.  It has a price tag of $25 USD,
which is also a bit steep if you ignore the full colour layout.

Cosmetically, the cover art is the only real good art in the book--
despite what CEE (Chameleon Eclectic Entertainment Inc.) claims-- and
is provided by the visual FX studio responsible for the CGI in the TV
series.  There are a few other pieces of digital art through out the
book, but they all suffer from a lack of anti-aliasing (ie: they look
pixelated or "blocky").  The four-colour hand drawn art ranges from
"blah-zay" to "pretty good" (with plenty of lens flares provided by
Adobe Photoshop), which is about two orders of magnitude lower than
CEE's own review of their art :(

The rules are nicely laid out, using colour whenever possible to help
out.  There is a fair amount of background material, no doubt to be
further backed up with additional sourcebooks.  Unfortunately, only a
very basic "Table Of Contents" is provided, and there is no index.
However, the "Table Of Contents" also contains the only typo that I
have found, so far...

Character development is laid out in such a way to encourage players
to flesh out their characters and not just participate using a number
of statistics.  A total of twelve Attributes exist, divided evenly
into Physical (Strength, Agility, Endurance, Coordination), Mental
(Intelligence, Insight, Wits, Perception), and Cultural (Charm,
=46inesse, Presence, Xenorelation).  Three derived Attributes are also
included (Toughness, Initiative, Resolve), and Psionics is treated as
an optional Mental Attribute.

Players begin by choosing a race (no, you can't play a Vorlon) and
writing down the average value for each Attribute.  Players are then
free to alter these stats by as much as +/-2, but the original
Attribute _total_ must remain the same (ie: for every +2 you wish to
apply, you must also apply a -2 or two -1's somewhere else).

You then answer a bunch of questions designed to build up the
character's background, so that skills can be assigned (there are no
"classes" like "Mercenary" or "Paladin").  Skills are then chosen,
following certain guidelines laid down by the referee and the campaign
s/he wants to run.

=46inally, descriptions called "Characteristics" are included as
roleplaying aids to help describe the character outside of his or her
Attributes and Skills (eg: Curious, Selfish, Ambidextrous, Enemies,
etc.).  All Characteristics have both Pros and Cons, but should be
cleared by the referee just in case.

Skipping over the Task System (see earlier posting), we come to an
interesting combat system sharing certain traits with an old RPG
called "Aftermath".  A hex-grid is superimposed over a silhouette of a
humanoid, with a default aiming location just below the heart.  A
normal skill task result is used to determine the degree of success or
failure (again, see earlier posting), while a third six-sided die is
rolled to determine the direction of scatter from that aiming point.
If a target is standing behind cover, simply obscure part of the
silhouette with a piece of paper.  Combat takes place during 2-second
turns, during which players act in order of their Initiative.  A house
rule popped up almost immediately that subjected the determination of
initiative to a task roll of its own (breaking the rigidness of the
current system and allowing slower characters the possibility of
acting sooner than normal).

Basically, the hex-grid allows attacks to deviate in six different
directions, with the amount of deviation depending on the level of
success (two hexes -2 Damage, one hex, target hex, and target hex +2
Damage, respectively).  The hex-grid is laid out in such a way that a
Marginal Success (two hexes deviation, -2 Damage) can easily shift an
attack off target enough to miss entirely.

The silhouette is also divided into 15 different hit locations, to
help indicate which areas are protected by body armour, if any.  Basic
humanoids are covered by the silhouette provided in the rulebook, but
I can easily see CEE providing additional target silhouettes in future
releases (possibly even including different positions like crouching
or lying prone).

=46or ranged combat, a player may alter the position of the default
aiming location by expending one action aiming (actions spent aiming
can also be exchanged for a beneficial -2 modifier, to a maximum
benefit of -4).  The layout of the hex-grid on the silhouette also
provides the drawbacks of aiming at isolated hit locations such as
hands or feet, since a shot that deviates has a very good chance at
missing altogether (remember, unless the hit is a Significant or
Critical success, the hit _will_ deviate at least one hex).  Dodging
targets also act to provide a penalty to the attacker's target number.

=46or HTH and melee combat, the further away from the default aiming
location you wish to aim, the greater the penalty (TBP states -1 per
hex, although some players have discussed changing this since it seems
a bit too harsh).  In certain circumstances, the referee may alter the
location of the default aiming location.  Unlike HTH or melee combat,
however, the attacker cannot spend one action aiming to do the same.

The target number for a HTH or melee attack is the opponent's Agility
if the attack is not actively defended against.  To actively defend,
the character must have a lower Initiative rating than the attacker
and expend his or her action for that round-- a defense roll resulting
in a Significant success allows the target to automatically usurp
initiative over the attacker the next round (ie: that character gets
to act _before_ the attacker during the next round, regardless of
their Initiative ratings).

HTH and melee attacks have their own "martial" skills as well.  The
human art Akido, for example, gives bonuses (ie: "Specialties", if
you've read my previous posting) to Parry/Attack, Pull Off Balance,
Multiple Defense, and Blind Fighting.

The medical and healing rules are quite good, but do not bog down game
play during combat.  During combat, non-leathal wounds inflict certain
penalties to all physical actions performed by the injured character.
Characters must also roll to remain conscious, depending on the wound
level.

Immediately after the combat, rolls are made to determine blood loss
(ie: how soon the player can go without basic first aid).  Rules are
also included limiting certain hit locations to the amount of damage
they can suffer (this also affect the rate that different body
locations heal at), whether or not an attack is severe enough to cause
broken bones (which mainly affect healing time), and how long a
seriously untreated wound will result in death (this one's obvious).
The temporary task penalty applied during combat due to the wound is
replaced with a more severe modifier that affects tasks involving that
particular body part (yes, there is a "Groin" hit location).  All of
these rules are handled using one, simple-to-read chart.

Lastly, characters possess what are known as "Fortune Points", which
are given out by the referee as rewards during the game.  Two of these
=46ortune Points can be used to add an additional d6 result to a task
result after the task roll has been made.  If the result on the extra
die is unsatisfactory, the player can spend another two Fortune Points
and roll again, keeping the better of the two results.  If the result
still isn't satisfactory, two more points will grant another roll (and
so on).  Fortune Points can also be used to save a character from
certain death, or perform tasks that the character couldn't normally
do.  These last two methods are subject to referee approval.

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1150
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Monday, April 7 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1151



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors 
Fighters - The Truth is out there
Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Re: Vegans
Re: Fighters vs Capital Ships
Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters
Realy extreme fighter scenario in MT
Question about the MMT Task System
Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters
Re: T4 Game Screen and UWP
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1133
Re: AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Preliminary THUUD Design - Comments, Please

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 00:01:20 -0700
From: George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com>
Subject: Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors 

>>[...] Since you have to assume the target surface is uneven and will
>>reflect in all directions, you have to assume that you'll intercept roughly
>>(collector area) / (hemispherical area at this range) of the photons.
>>At 10 hexes, that's half the area of a sphere 300,000,000 meters radius,
>>or 4 * pi * (r^2) = 1.13e18 m^2.  A one-square-meter detector mirror
>>or lens system would intercept 1.5e25/1.1e18 or about 1.4e7 photons
>>from that theoretical 1-joule pulse with those optics and can easily
>>determine range (by about a factor of 1e4 more than needed).
>
>Hmmm.. the reason I stated that the target was sphere is because the
>circular shape will only reflect back a very small portion of the pulsed
>energy lets say only .1 percent. How many photons would that get back to
>the receiver?

That's what the factor of (detector area) / (hemispherical area at that range)
is for... it assumes that of the photons that get to the target, they are
reflected evenly over half the spherical space on your side of the target.
So, the photons that reflect right back at you are (area of detector)
divided by (half total spherical surface area of sphere with radius as
large as the range to the target)*.  We earlier determined there were
order of 1.5e25 total photons in the 1J ranging pulse; with range of
300,000km (3e8 meters, 1 light-second) you get a total corrected
(see below for my error in the first analysis...) returned photon count of:
	1.5e25 / [ (1/2) * (4 * pi * ((3e8)^2) ]
...which works out to 2.6e7 total photons.

* Looking at my own numbers, I managed to drop the factor of
1/2 in the example given; the 4 * pi * (r^2) should be 2 *  pi * (r^2)
to account for only reflecting over half the total spherical volume not
the full volume, so double the number of photons that arrive back in the
example.

** Looking further at my own numbers, the 1/R^2 factor for the spot area
early in the analysis is incorrect: the intensity will be 1/R^2, but the
spot radius goes as R/sr when actual range > computed short range.
At "short range" the spot is the same size as the effective diameter
of the laser aperture.  Beyond that, it spreads out at a fixed angle
as described by R/sr ...  however, this doesn't affect the conclusion
of the example here, because the spot shrinks below the specified target
size (from exactly the specified target size) and the returned photon 
count stays the same.  That is just good luck, however, make sure and
do it right in any real calculations for followups...


- -george william herbert
Retro Aerospace
gherbert@crl.com

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 04:29:13 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Fighters - The Truth is out there

Okay, i started the whole fighter fiasco, now how about this little twist 
- - since there seems to be a bunch of quite well informed people on the 
list, what are peoples opinions about REAL fighters in space?

I'll set the parameters (to establish some sort of order)

No traveller rule limits - if you can invent it and justify it, you can
use it.

You can use any current technology available AND any traveller technology
availiable (this will allow for jumps and lasers etc).

Im curious to see people opnions.


Peace,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


The greatest waste of resources is the number
of people who never achieve their potential.
darrell Royal

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 07:29:08 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

On Sun, 06 Apr 1997 23:08:54 -0500, you wrote:

> >CSC??? VDS???
>=20
> CSC=3DCentral Supply Catalog

Ah, yes.  I kind of figured that out about two minutes after hitting
the send button.  I was going to buy CSC last week but upon seeing a
$33 CAN price tag on a 96(?) page book, I didn't bother.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 09:48:00 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

>Are all the old weapons that we are used to in the EA?
>
>You know--the gauss rifle, et al?  All the weapons that we've grown
>up using in Traveller?
>
>Kenneth.

If Emperors Arsenal is M0 then hopefully there'll be other weapons so that
M0 develops a feel of its own. That was one good thing with the Foss art:
Everything in the M0 era looks blobby, rysty and scientifically
implausible. Thos saying that this is unrealistic look at american cars in
the 1950 AD era.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 09:44:45 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Vegans

>On Sun, 6 Apr 1997, bri wrote:
>
>Actually for simplicity sake i changed the vegans to human looking
>matriachel green skin race:)  I did this because i have a picture of
>green skinned woman ... necessity drive invention!
>
>>  I was wondering if anyone out there knew where I could get a picture of a
>> Vegan(s)?
>>
>>  Thanks in advance
>> bri <bri@teleport.com>
>>
>
>
>        It's intuitively obvious!

There's a picture of a Vegan in CT Supplement Library Data (the one with
the second half of the alphabet). There's also a picture of a Vegan in the
DGP Solomani alien supplement. I don't have the page number but the Vegan
is the one with a large divers cyclope like face.
For thos preferring grin skinned women there's a better RPG for you: FASAs
Star Trek.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 19:41:15 +1200
From: Rupert Boleyn <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Fighters vs Capital Ships

At 23:33 7/04/97 +1000, you wrote:
>On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Ethan Henry wrote:

>> Imagine, you're a Vilani officer aboard the ZS Eneri VIII battleship.
>> It's a 10,000Td egg-shape, with Jump-2, maybe 3Gs of acceleration (all that
>> you can compensate) and a whopping big meson gun, the biggest you can hold.
>> (The Vilani like spheres for ship hulls, but a sphere is the worst thing
>> in the world to put a spinal mount in. Eggs are a nice comprimise for those
>> old-fashioned Vilani). What other weapons are there? Some missles maybe.
>> Maybe a few point defence weapons, anti-missle lasers, but not much other
>> than the spinal mount. There's no use for anything else - it isn't able
>> to damage the enemy. Military doctrines is to close into spinal mount
>> range on the enemy as fast as possible then hit them before they hit you.
>> (Hopefully you have a longer range and more armor). That's it.
>> 
>> One day, you engage the enemy (a strange looking vessel without a spinal
>> mount - easy target!) and before you manage to close in close enough
>> to loose your meson gun, the enemy ship disgorges a couple hundred ships
>> that are about 50td each. Huh? What do you shoot them with? You've got a
>> few missles, but not enough. You have a few point defence lasers, but not
>> that many. What the hell is powering those things? You've got the meson
>> gun, but it can't come to bear fast enough on those things (which are
probably
>> pulling 6 or more Gs, with pilots in acceleration tanks). Sure you're
>> heavily armoured, but they can get real close and punch through the soft 
>> parts - probably even firing right into the main meson firing tube!!
>> This is not looking good. You'd run, but they can chase you. Hopefully you're
>> not too close to a gravity well to jump...

 It seems unlikely to me that even tradintionalist Vilani wouldn't have
learnt something from the loss of the First Imperium at the hands of the
Terrans. I think that Terran ships would've used missiles a lot, as the use
of Anglic suggests they were West dominated, and would thus have favoured
man-power saving standoff weapons. This encourages the installation of good
anti-missile point defences, which would work damn well on fighters, as well.
 I fail to see why a mono-gun ship wouldn't also have the crew in G-tanks,
or just acceleration chair, and run at a G or two over the compensators for
the initial engagement (or when fleeing). Besides, I for one wouldn't want
to be in a fighter, in deep interplanetary space after some enemy (realising
he can't get away) just vapourised my carrier, and I don't think you could
kill a BB fast enough with fighters to stop this, esp. if the spinal mount
had any sort of range.
 As to the countermeasure problem (which I see I snipped out), you don't
have to copy the fighter tech to counter, just add anti-fighter escorts to
your fleet (destroyers armed solely with PD weapons), and refit your current
fleet with a better PD suite.
 The advantage TL12 gives, IMO is having nuclear dampers and meson screens,
as these give you staying power.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 11:15:50 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

>yes more properly stated angular deviation would have effect. Well lets try
>an example of the my point:
>
>Your ship is firing at a missile/fighter that is not attacking your ship at
>all. The longitudinal axis of your ship we will call the Z axis. The other
>two will called X and Y. Y being the going from keel to superstructure, and
>X going from port to starboard. Your course of your ship is 0 degrees, you
>are not evading or rolling. The target(read missile)is approaching your
>ship at 90 degree angle on the x axis. But the targets line of travel is
>below the X plane of your ship, it would pass underneath your ship by 1km.
>The target/missile is evading and doing three times your speed. Lets say
>that the Y axis angle is 135 degrees at the point you are going to fire.
>Your firing battery(1 turret) is located along the starboard side at the 90
>degree point on the X and Y axis. Your Firecontrol system will be firing a
>100 meter diameter pattern in order to have the best chance of hitting the
>target.(yes I know it an arbitrary pattern) But the range error in this
>case off by 300 meters, ie your FCS has placed the target 300 meter ahead
>of it self. Your FCS will be basing its TOT(Time On Target) upon this. The
>end result being that when the laser pulses get there, they will be 250
>meters ahead of the target/missile, net result no chance of a hit.
>
>Now if my target/missile was attacking your ship at 90 degrees on the X and
>Y axis yes the range error will matter little. But who says that missiles
>can not perform the maneuvers of current day antiship missiles, like a
>popup tactic or a TankBreaker? maneuver popping up and detonating above the
>target.

OK the basic argument is about active sensors superiority due to them being
able to calculate the range more exactly and faster than passives. The post
you're (Sam Thomas) replying to said that we're not that interested in
range when shooting with beam weapons (true). You then concoct a really
stupid scenario the passives would use in order to "prove" the superiority
of actives.
You basically assume that passive sensors will not shoot at the predicted
future angular location but the actives will. Please enlight me if I have
misunderstood your reasoning.
BTW In your example the TOT will be neglible so in that particular case it
is actually OK to shoot at the last angular position with
lasers/mesons/neutrons.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 04:55:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: Brad Vender <vender@plains.nodak.edu>
Subject: Realy extreme fighter scenario in MT

To help keep the fighter discussion going, here are some quick numbers I
  worked out for a confrontation between a BattleShip/BattleRider and a
  small army:

  Attacker: 200,000 T Battleship.  Cost in excess of 146,000 MCr.
    Assuming:  Computer Model 9. Def DM=7.
    800 Missle batteries, 90 laser batteries, 1 Particle accelerator,
    5 meson cannons, some sand casters.
    Armor:  110

  Defenders: 1,259 strike fighters from Fighting Ships of the Imperium.
    2 pulse laser batteries, 1 missle battery, Computer model 9, DefDM=17.
    Armor:  Doesn't matter.
    Note that the size of the fighter squadron was chosen to come out close
    to the price of the battle ship, and that equal tonnage would have
    given a fleet of 20,000 fighters.

  I started out using a strike battleship for the attacker, but realized
  that it would be too easy, so I handwaved the exchange of the jump drive
  for a few hundred missle batteries.

  First, an observation that pg. 95 of the MT ref's book says that fighter
  squadrons may be organized into batteries if the ships all have the
  same agility.

  Second, and here's the weak part, is that a ship scoring a critical success
  on its to hit roll (and within visual range) may do a pin point attack.
  If the attack was really exceptional (an additional +2 over regular
  exceptional), then the location is hit by a critical hit.  What gets iffy
  is that the battleship gets a -23 DM on its damage table when
  the fighters attack it, so I assumed that the rule that critical hits
  always remove a point of armor (pg. 94) applies.

  Okay, so here are the battle preparations:
    The fighter fleet organizes into a group of about 41 squadrons just to
    make sure that their effective fire is as strong as possible.  The fighters
    advance to visual range (neighboring hex to the battleship) and begin
    firing).
  And here's what my quick calculations of the results would be:
    1.  Each round, the battleship will kill whatever it hits (several
        criticals on each fighter hit).
        To save time, assume that the mesons and PA hit each round.
        And assuming about 900 shots from all the other batteries,
        the target number is a 12 to hit (11-9 (comp)+17 (def DM)-7 (weapon))
        for 25 hits in addition.  Since the fighters have no defenses,
        assume that each of those hits kills its target.

        So the battleship is killing 30 fighters per turn, and in
        42 turns the enemy fighters will all be dead.

    2.  Assuming the fighters stay in the 41 squadrons to minimize unfairness,
        each shot ends up having a 2+ target to hit, and a 6+ chance of
        a critical hit at visual range.  The odds of penetrating are about
        6+ again, so the battleship can expect 10 critical per round.
        To even things out, I'm assuming that the missle batteries don't
        hit, or just serve to keep the sandcasters busy.

        So, it will take about 4 or 5 rounds until the battleship starts to
        take surface damage (the maximum modified damage rolls start to 
        exceed 0), and about two more turns before the battleship's armor
        drops to 40 or less, and each hit starts causing damage.

  Observations:
    1.  Okay, I conceede the point that none of these fighters (except maybe
        the 30 which die each turn :( ) will be stupid enough to get within
        50,000km of the battleship.

    2.  Depending on the ships being used, the battleship has atleast
        800 crew members.  The attacking swarm of fighters has around
        2500 crew if the Fighting Ships fighter is used.

    3.  The carriers in Fighting Ships carry between 300 and 600
        20-30 ton ships.  The fighters used here are 20 ton fighters.

    4.  No, I didn't bother to see if the ship designs were valid.  I was
        just doing some quick possibility studies (as opposed to feasibility
        for launching 1250 fighters from a planet/base).

    5.  Okay, I'll admit that I was really stretching the rules into places
        they probably weren't designed to go when doing these calculations.
        One of the things I did do was to ignore the bit about getting a
        pinpoint critical hit and rerolling until you get the location you
        aimed for, since it isn't possible initially to get past 0 on the
        chart for the first few turns.

  End result:  After suffering probably massive losses (50% or so), the
  fighter fleet should win.  Note that unless the battleship has jump
  capacity, there is no way for it to get away (which is what an agility
  of 6 is good for--the fighters decide when the battle ends...).

In summary, as the MT rules are written, you don't need special rules for
  fighters to be effective.  You just need a really big army of pilots
  (about 3 times the crew of the handwaved battleship above).  All you
  really need is a really large number of them.

And yes, I will admit that the fighters really would be better off performing
  more realistic roles (not to mention less challenging to the rule lawyers)
  like finishing off damaged capital ships, really intimidating the players, 
  and performing scouting/patrol missions.  I also know that one of the
  reasons this tactic works is that the battleships are designed to easily
  damage other ships of similar levels of armor and weaponry, and not
  to kill huge armies of fighters.

And just think, the odds of dieing on the side of the fighters starts at
  1/40 and rises, so there probably isn't more than a 5 percent chance
  of being a casualty each round.  Oh, and most of the damage to the
  battleship will be on the surface chart, things like fuel, weapons, drives,
  and hull.  It might even be worth salvaging after the combat is over.

But the real question is wether or not T4 is going to allow this sort of
  encounter to work quite as well (if at all).  If it does, then there
  probably isn't a need to have ships with mini-spinal weapons.
- --Brad

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 14:29:55 +0200
From: Carlos Alos-Ferrer <alos@merlin.fae.ua.es>
Subject: Question about the MMT Task System

        It seems I have missed something. I thought that the new Task System
proposed by Marc used a "half die" somewhere, and the Referee's Screen
states something a progression like ... 2D, 2D+, 3D, indicating the presence
of this half die.
        But I have just found Marc's post detailing the new task system...
and I cannot find any half dice. I'm a bit confused. Could somebody explain
which is the Task System that has been discussed, and which Task system is
going into the Deluxe version?
        Thanks!

>From: CardSharks@aol.com
>Subject: Tasks (Draft 022297)
(Snip)
>Task Statement:
>	(characteristic + skill) +/- modifiers < difficulty (nD)
(Snip)
>Task Difficulties
>Difficulty Level	Dice Code	Typical Success
>Easy	                     auto           100%
>Average	              2D		
>Difficult	              3D		
>Formidable	              4D		
>Staggering	              5D		
>Impossible	              6D		
>	If an Easy task is attempted using a default skill, the Dice Code is 1D.

Carlos.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 08:29:15 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

On Sun, 06 Apr 1997 16:43:43 -0600, you wrote:

> 	The problem with the Babylon 5 model is that the weapons on the =
fighters
> are an order or two of magnitude more powerful than the ones in =
Traveller.

Yup.

> In B5 it is possible for a fighter-sized laser to penetrate the armor =
on a
> big ship. In Traveller, it just isn't. A laser that fits into a =
"classical
> fighter" (i.e. a one-man, on the order of 10disp tons), won't go =
through
> meters of armor. All it'll do is scrape things off the hull IF it hits
> something vital and unprotected. In B5, fighters also seem to have more
> acceleration than big ships. In Traveller, not.

Actually, I believe that the Starfury's weaponry is based on the same
Phased Plasma Gun (PPG) technology that is visible in pistol & rifle
form on the TV show.  I say this because they make no mention of laser
weaponry in the RPG.

> 	The biggest flaw in the B5/Trav comparison is the range of combat. =
Given
> realistic sensors (read: sensors we can build now), a Traveller ship =
can
> detect the fighter quite a ways out; B5 tends to seem to fight at =
visual
> range--it's a TV SHOW! They want to show off their special effects. =
Given
> lasers that can fire every other SECOND (ROF800), you're dead long =
before
> you get into visual range.=20

=46ans want to see dogfights... they want to see "cause and effect"
(preferably both on the screen at the same time).  If the fighters
were armed with plasma guns, the range problem would make more sense.
But who uses plasma guns when lasers are more accurate and longer
ranging?  Of course, the larger ships use what appears to be beam
weaponry of some kind, and those mysterious "Old Ones"... who knows???
(I always thought that ancient races would be more benevolent--
OBVIOUSLY not :)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 06:51:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: T4 Game Screen and UWP

On Sun, 6 Apr 1997, JEFF ZEITLIN wrote:

>   I just got mine from IG (along with additional copies of M0
>   and FS) and I was looking it over - there are four digits in
>   the UWP printed on the back that I've never seen:  Whatinhell
>   are "Resources", "Labor", "Infrastructure", and "Culture"?
>   There are _no_ rules that I am aware of for generating or
>   interpreting them...

There will be by the end of the month....Pocket Empires. :)


- -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: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 06:51:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

On Sun, 6 Apr 1997 ImpGrAdmrl@aol.com wrote:

> In reading the stats for the weaponry displayed in The Emperor's Arsenal, I
> am struck by an incredible fact.  Are energy weapons such as the Plasma
> Cannon Man Portable also subject the the 3 dice maximum damage inflicted in
> personal combat as well?

Nah.  That limit is, as you pointed out, intended to model the effect of 
"blow through" for projectile/kinetic energy weapons.  It doesn't hold 
true in cases of, say, the damage received when a cannonball hits a 
player - it's hitting a large area of the body.  Or when shotgun 
fire hits him - lots of projectiles hitting at once.  Or, in this case, 
when a stream of plasma hits him.


- -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: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 09:41:59 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1133

>This logic also doesnt follow in the real world.  Remember, none of us
>have been on a Space battleship (Aurora class:) so we can only compare
>our theories to real world examples (as close as possible any way)

*BZZZZT* Sorry, wrong answer! Probably everyone on this list has been
on a space battleship, including yourself. We are discussing game
tactics with game weapons in a game setting; this is something
that seems to always get lost in these arguments. So it is perfectly valid 
to modify real world examples
with what we know works in the game world.

>How
>were the Japanese able to destroy the Prince Of Wales and its
>sister ship in ww2 just with naval based air power?  
>
>The prince of wales and sister were the best Battleships the british had,
>also the newest. most heavily armed and armoured, bristly with AA.  The
>japanese lost no planes, the ships were sunk in a matter of hours.  

But would this have happened in your example if the Prince of Wales had 
been armed with LOS weapons that fire and hit at c, and the Prince of
Wales had been capable of accelerating and moving just as fast as the
fighters? See? The aircraft carrier analogy does not work, at least until
we have battleshiips and cruisers that can accelerate at multiple Gs and 
hit speeds of 600 knots.

>If a fighter has the right weaponry (For space combat i would say missiles
>and space bombs with proxiamety charges) it just doesnt matter how thick
>the armour is.  People seem to think fighters are one shot weapons, there
>not.  They hit in waves, first waves drops there payload, returns to
>carrier, refuels and rearms.  While this is going on the second and third
>waves have hit.  A Battleship can only take so much damage from Nuclear
>warheads and Fusion/Fission/Anti-Matter bombs.

Once again, this only works in a planetary situation where you have a horizon
the carriers can hide behind, weather that can hinder visual sighting, fighters
that can travel magnitudes faster than capital ships, etc. Once you move 
this situation out into the big, wide empty expanses up there with LOS 
weapons that can are effective at extreme ranges and large cruisers and 
destroyers that can race back to your carrier as fast as your fighters can,
it doesn't seem like that nice a situation.

>Armour is a measure of endurance in these sort of battles, not a guarntee
>of safety.

True in the 50th century or the 5th.

>> In the real world, aircraft won because they were orders of magnitude
>> faster than ships, and because they have access to weapons (torpedoes
>> and bombs) that have very short ranges - so ships can't use them
>> effectively against other ships - but do huge amounts of damage.
>> Neither of these are true in Traveller. Traveller fighters aren't aircraft;
>> they're speedboats with machine guns. Imagine attacking a dreadnaught
>> in a speedboat with a machine gun.
>
>Aircraft won because of speed and agility, and being able to deliver
>high-powered explosives without being hit, and being able to do this
>repeatedly. 
>
>How wouldnt this hold true in Traveller?

Because all the other ships can travel just as fast as your fighters? Why do you
keep ignoring everytime this is pointed out? Aircraft travel far faster than
ships,
spaceships travel just as fast as space fighters.

>Also, your speed boat analogy is good, but still wrong.  Its still
>2-dimensional.

Uh, duh, so is Traveller the last time I played <g>.


**********************************************************
  Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
 CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 09:00:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)

In a message dated 4/4/97 8:10:55 PM, James Garriss wrote:

<<Question: in order to pick up stuff, someone has to been sending out
signals for it to pick up.  Who's doing the sending?>>

Any spacecraft in motion does sending, IR, noise, etc.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 14:11:33 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

>So you are saying that we can "handwave" the major producers of heat but
>the minor producers like life support we can not. Is a correct? Well I
>would prefer a uniform use of "handwaving" for heat management/radiation,
>if it can be used on power plants et al then it should "handwaving" the
>life support and solar heating.

 You'll have to handwave somewhere. I can agree to cooling off the p'plant
with superheated hydrogen plasma bled off the ship (the cool blue light
from the enginelike coolers at the back off the ship). But if you are gonna
postulate that ship hulls are 0 Kelvin or close I might as well play D&D.
Whenever handwaving is neccessary keep it to a minimum please.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 14:06:50 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

>    This also leads to about handling the effects of other weapon types which
>will be developed futher down the timeline of the Third Imperium (the New
>era, and the Far Future).  Neuronal weapons as well as disintegrators (which
>ignore armor according to Traveller lore... the MegaTraveller Encyclopedia)
>are likely weapons which must inflict damage well beyond the 3D limit.

Not to mention KEAP rounds from tanks etc ;)
My suggestion is trashing the rules (all of them) and make your own based
on sound physical principles and math. Start with some definitions like
what actually do I want +1 to hit mean (in my case +1 means the doubling of
the hit propability controlling value like doubling the area at a given
range or increasing the range by a factor sqrt(2)) then define game values
out of this. I wanted to hit DM on a normal human to be 0 which gave me:
0.5 m2 equals 0 DM. Continue doing a few more definitions (what value do I
want a normal STR 7 fist be?, a 9mm round? Then follow physical laws and
everything fits ;)

I could describe the system to those interested but most people on the list
seem to be stuck into the "we have to be compatible with the excellent
products from Imperium Games". Anybody doing their own
design/combat/spacecombat systems that are interested can drop me a line
and enough interest is shown I might write down the basic principles,
formulas et c that I use. Be prepared to toss hitpoints, tasksystem et c.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 06:09:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>
Subject: Preliminary THUUD Design - Comments, Please

  I've been playing around with the Patrol Cruiser using QSDS.  I must say
that system works better for merchant ships than warships - there were a
number of things I wanted to do but could not due to the system
limitations.  Ah well, that's what you get for going the simple route, and
since I forgot to pack Starships I don't even get to try out SSDS while
I'm here in Denmark the next six months.

  Anyway, here is my preliminary design.  The major problem with it is due
to QSDS - the armor rating.  I'd like something larger, but there are only
three ships with more than 20 points of armor in the QSDS list.  The 200T
needle is too small for this job (at least I think so), the 400T Wedge is
not streamlined, so wilderness refueling is out, and the 800T sphere is
too large according to the design requirements.

  The other problem is that there is no provision for L-Hyd tanks in QSDS.
The design I'd like to make would have a 400T hull with a 100T tank.  In
normal operation the tank stays on for J2 operation.  Dropping the tank
gives one J3 jump, with subsequent performance at J1 until the tank gets
re-attached.  This is similar to the old Close Escort from Classic
Traveller, and allows a more flexible operating envelope.

  Anyway, here is the design - comments welcome.


Generica Shipyards Model 45212 - Patrol Cruiser (QSDS)

Tons: 500 Std (Slab S)		Cost: 513.66 MCr
Crew: 25	High/Mid Pass: 2/0	Low: 0
Cargo: 2 STD	Controls: Military (Bridge)	TL: 12

08 Size				02 Jump Drive (100 Std/20%)
				04 Manuever (Thrust Plate)
4x Laser (+4)1/4-4-3-2		1750 Power Plant (1x1000, 1x750)
2x Missile (+4)			118.7 Fuel (Scoop 200, Refine 3)
				04 Meson Screen
				04 Sandcasters (30 Cans)
				00 Nuclear Damper
10T Minimal Hanger		A16 P5 J16
				20 Armor, 16 Structure

Crew Detail:	4 Engineers, 2 Electronics, 2 Manuever, 9 Gunners
		1 Screens, 2 Aux Craft, 3 Command, 1 Steward
		1 Medical

  The Type 45212 combines a mix of weaponry in an inexpensive package
capable of both fleet and independant operations.  Defense is a
combination of laser, sandcaster, and meson screens, as well as the
potential to carry small patrol craft to support the mission.  Offense
consists of both missiles (controled by a central fire director) and
long-range lasers that allow the Type 45212 to stand off and engage the
enemy.  Combined with manuever 4 capability, this ship can deal handily
with the typical small pirate or commerce raider opponent.  In both
defense and offense, the Type 45212 can take advantage of its
military-grade sensor package, allowing it to act as controller for
missile-pack SDBs in a system desense role.

  Equiped with both a sick bay and fuel purification systems, the Type
45212 is capable of extended independant operations.  All crew members are
housed in roomy small staterooms rather than bunks to provide
additional comfort on long patrols.  The three command crew (Captain,
Gunnery Officer, and Chief Engineer) have large staterooms of their own.
To accomadate additional command personell, two large sterooms are
provided.  By doubling up on crew space, additional persons can be
accomadated.

  Hanger space for two 5T fighters is provided, along with space for their
pilots.  Since current fighter doctrine is under review, no craft are
included in the bid.  If small fighters are not required under the final
operations orders, this space can be allocated to additional storage,
yeilding 20 tons extra space.

  Generica Shipyards used only Sylea Industry Norm (SIN) components in
this design.  As a result, total cost reflects a substantial discount.
Volume production can commence immediatly, with large deliveries as
needed.


Design Notes:

  This design was a compromise, middle-of-the-road sort of thing, with a
mix of weaponry.  I originally wanted to put in a 100T TL-12 PA-Gun, but
it did not fit, darn it, at least not without compromising the other
systems, since the gun sucks so much power.  With a 600T hull it might
just work, but the QSDS 600T hull is only M2 and 10 points of armor.  I
went for some long-range lasers instead, to give the ship some punch to
deal with small opponents.  As mentioned above, the big problem is armor -
I'd like more but am not willing to learn SSDS for that reason alone. 

  I considered some smaller designs, but they seem less effective to me,
since there are fixed sizes for many of the components (sensors, fuel
purification, meson screen) and that robs space in a smaller hull.

  If you decide small craft are not needed, there is room for a few more
things - I sized the power to leave about an extra 50 MW, so one could add
more missiles or sandcasters. 

  An interesting exercise - I'd love comments.

______________________________
Dr. Mark Clark
Oregon Institute of Technology

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1151
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Monday, April 7 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1152



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Sv: Traveller-digest V1997 #1149
Re: Question about the MMT Task System
Re: Fighters vs Capital Ships
Re: TL & the Darrians
re: Known Bright Star List for the Alpha Leonis/Crucis Sector
Re: AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)
Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors
Re: Color of the sky
Re: Colour of the sky
Fighters and sensors
Fighters as defensive batteries.
Re: Fighters - what ranges???
Re: RICE papers, Vegans
Re: Retirement Pay for 2 Careers
Re: Preliminary THUUD Design - Comments, Please
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Re: Question about the MMT Task System
APRIL THUDDD
Solomani Missile Boats (Re: Fighters)
Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 16:37:51 +0200
From: "Mark Seemann" <mark@dk-online.dk>
Subject: Sv: Traveller-digest V1997 #1149

5/4-97 Stuart L. Dollar wrote:

> Hmm.  Several worlds in the Imperium made it to TL 16 in the last 
> years of the 3rd Imperium, immediately prior to and during the early 
> years of the rebellion.  Some Hiver worlds made it to TL 17.  

You are absolutely right about the TL 16 worlds in the Third Imperium, but,
as you also pointed out, they were not all that common.

I didn't know that about the Hivers, though, but find it a _very_
interesting piece of information. Where did you find that? I'd like to
know!

Mark Seemann
mark@dk-online.dk
http://www2.dk-online.dk/users/Mark_Seemann

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 09:51:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: Question about the MMT Task System

On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Carlos Alos-Ferrer wrote:

>         It seems I have missed something. I thought that the new Task System
> proposed by Marc used a "half die" somewhere, and the Referee's Screen
> states something a progression like ... 2D, 2D+, 3D, indicating the presence
> of this half die.
>         But I have just found Marc's post detailing the new task system...
> and I cannot find any half dice. I'm a bit confused. Could somebody explain
> which is the Task System that has been discussed, and which Task system is
> going into the Deluxe version?
>         Thanks!

What you found was an early copy of the task system, I believe.  The 
correct progression is:  1D, 2D, 2.5D, 3D, 4D, 5D (Easy, Routine, 
Difficult, Formidable, Staggering, Impossible, respectively).


- -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: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 10:58:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ethan Henry <ehenry@mag1.magmacom.com>
Subject: Re: Fighters vs Capital Ships

Well, some people thought my scenario was a good one, some people
thought it stank...

jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay) wrote:
>I do not discount the high probability of such an encounter, and as a
>work of fiction, it could be considered highly accurate.
>
>Traveller, however, is a RPG with a limited selection of rules.  No
>version of the traveller ship combat rules would allow fighters to
>"get real close and punch through the soft parts" of the target's
>armour.  Armour is armour, and it is all equally effective regardless
>of facing or location (even the maneuver drive T-plates/HEPlaR ports
>are considered armoured under the rules).  Considering that the armour
>of such a Capital ship was designed to defend it against powerful PA
>spinal mounts, it should be suffice to defend it against fighter
>lasers and most missile attacks.

Um, yes. Damn those simplistic rules. This is a situation where the
description you'd have for something is justified under what "game
reality" would be like, but has no basis in the rules.  Fix the rules,
I say.

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>        I don't quite buy this one, Ethan... if my neighbours are building
>ships with inadequate point defenses, all I'm going to start doing is
>building my ships with many, many missile racks apiece, and nuke my
>opponents to bits before they get into spinal mount range with massive
>missile waves.
>
>        The more I think about it, the more I think that any admiral
>sending fighters in against capital ships would be out of his mind.
>Fighters against merchants, fighters against interface fighters, fighters
>against ground targets, yes, but not against capital ships...  Now a swarm
>of the gunboats I proposed a few posts back against capital ships, yes, but
>not fighters...

OK, again, yes, unless you'd never seen a missle before, you'd
probably have a decent point defence. However, I have an explanation
for why my scenario doesn't make complete sense (at the end of the post).

Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com> wrote:
>Logical, smart, and it makes sense.  I would tie them in with a combined
>force of fighters and TL12 capital ships. 

OK, not everyone thinks my scenario is totally dopey. Of course fighters
would act as part of a larger force - fighters alone would have a tough
time of doing anything.

shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:
>Betcha it doesn't last more than 5-10 *years* at any given place. But
>as long as they can keep fusion+ a secret from the folks thy are
>*fighting*, they *can't* refit, because they can't build it. 

It's not just refitting, it's the ability to change military tactics...
a lot of cultures in Year 0 are going to have signifigant cultural
"leftovers" from the old Vilani rule, which will make it difficult
for them to change. The Syleans have the same advantage over most of their
opponents as the US had over the Russians in the Cold War - a culture
that is ultimately more flexible, efficient and determined. I have more
ideas about this, but I don't have the time to post it all now...

Well, anyways, the major point of my post was not to describe a situation where
fighters will trample a capital ship. Other people have pointed out good
reasons why this isn't going to happen. My main point was to get away from
the other arguments that were going something like this:

A - fighterz rule! (d00d)
B - fighterz suck!
A - my 8000 fighters will totally overrun you big slow ship
B - my 16000 point defence lasers will take out your shitty 8000 fighters
A - no, you don't have all those lasers
B - yeah, I do
A - yeah, well, your big ships have a lower top speed
(etc)

Like, ok guys, thanks a lot. There is no way to resolve this argument
without saying "At point X in time, would a fighter be an effective
part of a naval fleet"? During the early RoM, no, fighters wouldn't
even exist. Would fighters be more effective during the Fifth Frontier War?
Hm, well, everyone would be pretty used to them by then, so they wouldn't
be a big advantage. Year 0 would be a different story though - fighters
would be something that no one has ever seen before - this is a pretty big
deal! It probably ranks up there in Imperial military history with the 
invention of the meson gun.

The fact that the rules have no provisions for possible advantages
of fighters is, IMO, a problem with the rules. Marc, if you want
to let the Syleans actually win any space battles, throw in some
rules to give fighters a hand up for a while! Otherwise it's back
to those damned Vilani in another episode of "Confucanism in Space".

Without setting specific guidelines to hold the discussion within, it's
kind of like saying "Were airplanes the dominant battlefield weapon in
history"? You really have to kind of pin down WHERE in history you're
talking about, otherwise it's not a productive discussion.

Ethan

PS I don't think airplanes are effective weapons - as an example, the
Roman seige of Carthage and its later conquest of Egypt.

- -- 
ehenry@magma.ca                                  http://www.magma.ca/~ehenry

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 17:17:57 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: TL & the Darrians

David Scott writes:
>>*And how DID the Darrians manage to lose their TL 16 knowledge when one
>> entire university survived the _Maghiz_ intact? Sigh...
> 
>I think that you are missing the difference between having the information
>(and trying to rebuild your civilization) and building the technology. A
>university just doesn't have the industrial facilities or staff to rebuild
>a world...

No, I'm perfectly aware of the difference. In fact, one of my pet peeves
are Traveller authors who is _not_ aware of the difference and blithely
assume that (for example) just because surgery didn't become really 
developed on Earth until late 19th Century then surgery is a TL 4+
phenomenon. Actually, all you need to perform (fairly) successful surgery
is a sharp knife, the ability to boil water plus _knowledge_ of sterile
procedures (Well, a good painkiller wont hurt). Which means that you can 
_implement_ surgery at TL 1, even if you can't discover it until TL 4 (a 
very iffy 'even', btw.).

So I have no quarrel with the Darrians being unable to implement TL 16
technology just after the _Maghiz_ (in fact, I would have trouble with
them being able to do so). And I don't have any trouble with them being
unable to implement it for centuries thereafter. What I can't accept is
that they would be unable to implement it for millenia thereafter UNLESS
the knowledge entirely disappeared in the _Maghiz_. Which is what the
module _Darrians_ says happened. Even in 1100 there are aspects of their
TL 16 artifacts that the Darrians can't understand. Well and good. But
_Darrians_ also state that one of their five biggest universities survived
the _Magihz_ intact and assisted in the rebuilding of Darrian. Universities
are repositories of knowledge. So how did this university manage to
selectively lose some information completely when it survived intact?

And don't say that the TL 16 knowledge was so new that the university
hadn't had time to acquire it. The Darrians had TL 16 long enough to
build a lot more than three dozen starships (that was the number that
_survived_ the _Maghiz_ and a 1000 years of inattention). They had it
long enough to reach TL 17 in selected fields. And the universities 
used TL 16 to build the probes that set off the _Maghiz_.

I can't come up with any scenario that allows a university to survive
yet destroys the knowledge it contains. Can you?


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 08:52:14 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: Known Bright Star List for the Alpha Leonis/Crucis Sector

>0125  Beta Pictoris              A5 V

Beta Pic is a *great* setting for an adventure - it has an incredibly
thick inner dust disk - thick enough that starship passive sensors 
(which work mostly in the IR) would have their range reduced by a factor of
ten or more. (Not due to absorbtion, but due to the increased thermal
emssion from all that dust.)

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 09:00:37 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)

>And the IR is the biggy. The background is interstellar space. At 3
>degrees Kelvin. Humans and anything at a comfortable temp for them
>radiate around 300K. The waste heat from the powerplant, drives, etc
>has to be radiated from the ship or the ship will get hotter until it
>*is* radiated as fast as it's created. You can't "mask" the IR.
>Attempting to redirect it to limited areas of the hull uses *lots* of
>energy, resulting in an overall signal that is *stronger*. 

Actually, the background is zodiacal dust, at 200 - 300 K but not
optically thick; it's much brighter than the 3K until you get out to sub-mm
wavelengths. It'll vary a lot from system to system and even within a system
(since it forms in the asteroid belt and spirals into the sun, there's very
little dust outside the orbit of jupiter; systems without asteroid belts will
have almost no dust; some young systems - like Vega and Beta Pictoris - have
huge amounts for reasons that aren't well understood.) Adds a nice touch of
colour - referees should modify sensor rolls for "black sky" (no dust)
and "red sky" (heavily dusty) operations.

Redirecting the IR emission seems vaguely plasuible. You'd end up with a
signature like an F-117 - incredibly high along narrow beams, very low
elsewhere. It would work particularly well if you spot the opponent first -
then you'd just cool one side of the enemy and turn the hot side away from
them.

Bruce

(Still, overall Traveller does overstate how hard it is to detect people
with passive sensors; in the "real world" passive sensor ranges will be 
much longer than Traveller and active sensor ranges (probably) smaller.
This is partially a result of Traveller power consumptions being way too high,
so starships end up with gigawatts of power.)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 09:09:58 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors

>  It is possible that someone have suggested this before, but wouldn't
>it be possible to use gravitic focussing for *passive sensors*?

My model for grav focussing is that the system fires a grav pulse that
travels with the beam, pulling it in by just enough to counteract the
spreading due to diffraction (this requires much more reasonable field
strengths than a point source in front of the laser would) - so it won't
work for sensors.

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 09:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Color of the sky

Leonard Erickson wrote:

>Sunset will definitely be red. That's due to absorportion and the like.
>
>But I think you are going to run into a situation like Mars. Sulfur
>compounds in the air tend to abosorb blue light *very* strongly. They
>also tend to form fine aerosols. Which will act like the dust in Mars'
>very thin atmosphere.
>
>So the daylight sky will be *pink*!

Cool! Okay, I've got "looks like Earth's," "yellow" and "pink." I think
I'll assume the morning sky will be yellowish with the heat of the day
stirring up the sulphur compounds, pink in the afternoon and into dusk.
Sounds good.

In any event, I think locals should advise the PCs _not_ to remove their
helmets/compressors. <g>

Best,

Chris

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 09:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Colour of the sky

Thanks, Michael. I thought that the type F star might also have an effect,
but the more I thought about with my non-scientific brain, I realized that
it's not that the light given off by the star that makes it white, but the
heat of the star itself. Therefore, the light wouldn't be any different.

Thanks for the input on volcanoes and the likelihood of that being the
cause for the sulphur dioxide taint.

Another interesting feature of Bruyere is that there is a high population
of Chirpers there. With the very thin atmosphere, my assumption is that the
Bruyerian Chirpers are a subterranean lot who live off a denser atmosphere
in natural caverns. The subterranean atmosphere would be rich in oxygen
(subterranean lichens giving it off?), nitrogen and carbon dioxide and
devoid of the sulphur compounds in the outdoor atmosphere. I have no idea
how realistic this is, but it makes for a good story!

Sheesh, I have to find _some_ way a race of oxygen-breathing mammals can
survive such hostile conditions. The fact that Chirpers and Droyne can live
in reduced life support environments lends itself to my story.

Thanks also to David Summers for his input.

Best,

Chris


>CG
>Thanks for raising a different topic from the (yawn!) thread on fighters
>clogging the TML at the moment. I really enjoy putting in little
>details like colour of sky, strength of wind, feel of gravity and so on
>to add authenticity. IMO, this is something the players will experience on
>*every* planetfall, whereas chitchat about the advantages of fighters in
>space combat will almost never be of any use.
>
>Back to the topic:
>Somebody stated that the taint won't have any effect on the colour of the
>sky, and this is correct for sulphur compounds. However, other taints
>like dust, smoke and so on will turn the sunlight a distinctive shade
>of yellow (if you've ever been near a bushfire you'll know what I'm
>talking about); if the atmosphere is tainted with sulphur, it
>is a fair bet that there is a lot of volcanic activity - and
>volcanoes don't just belch out 'colourless sulphur dioxide'!
>
>Our sky is blue because our sunlight is scattered, but I don't know if
>different coloured sunlight (ie different star) would scatter
>differently - thus leading to a strangely coloured sky?
>
>Also, I'm not sure, but I think a chlorine taint might make the sky
>greenish.
>
>**************************************************************************
>Michael Barry
>mbarry@pcug.org.au               <--- checked daily
>**************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 16:39:28 +0100 (BST)
From: Mark James Wilkin <aa4mwi@zen.sunderland.ac.uk>
Subject: Fighters and sensors

Someone was saying that fighters mount less capable sensors, but couldn't 
they errrrmm, multiplex I thinks the word. You know like that very long 
baseline array telescope that NASA use made up of many small telescopes, 
If they worked in a squadron they could share data between themselves.
Oh and probably been reading too much honor harrington but why is it that 
no ones mention in the ship combat threads passive sensor buoys, fire one 
out the back of ship watch it deplay and boom you've just doubled(or more 
) you passive sensor rating. Of course you'd have to be well away from it 
when it deployed so you wouldn't get seen doing it.
Well is this a good idea?

*** "*Thwap* My life needs a rewind/erase button"            ***
***                                       Calvin and Hobbes  ***
*** Mark James Wilkin                                  	     ***
*** Degrees North on the Web                                 ***
*** http://zen.sunderland.ac.uk/~aa4mwi/north.html           ***

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 14:01:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher Russell <russcm@zoomnet.net>
Subject: Fighters as defensive batteries.

I had a thought a while back concerning fighters. In reference to the rule
on grouping fighters as a battery, ie all similar weapons and similar
agility (and probably speed). If you tie the "battery" to a platform to be
screened, then it is logical that the fighters could be used as defensive
batteries against incoming missiles. With advanced computer guidance and
fast firing weapons, this "floating battery" could add significantly to a
ships chance of survival and be transfered to another platform when
needed, or even screen an entire fleet if they were along or near the
approach vector of the incoming missiles. This is the tactic the U. S.
Navy uses with the F - 14 and the Phoenix missile, although it first
attempts to shoot the bombers before they can launch their warheads.

Also, this battery grouping by the fighters could greatly increase the
effectiveness of the fighters. Even in modern warfare, it is groups of
fighters attacking one target, combining the firepower. This tactic, even
though it may be more difficult in Milenu 0 against capital ships, would
be hell on screens.

If anyone would like them, I did develop a few tasks (MT system) that
relates to this grouping (ie forming up, linking fire, etc) as well as a
few designing rules that enhances these tactics.

Comments and flames welcome :)

Christopher M. Russell
russcm@zoomnet.net

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 12:51:21 -0400
From: James Garriss <jpg@langley.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Fighters - what ranges???

At 09:25 PM 4/4/97 GMT, James Lindsay wrote:

>Today's fighters can engage air targets at ranges of no more than
>100km (or so), while engaging surface targets at roughly half that
>distance.  

Eek.  Well, let's at least use good numbers here.  Jane's supplies some
nice info:

air-to-air missiles max range:              150km
air-to-surface missiles max range:          650km
air-to-surface cruise missiles max range:  3000km

If someone wants to know the specific types of missiles, etc., I can supply
that.

>Traveller fighter sensors allow them to actively engage
>targets a thousand times further away.  This would require some
>powerful sensor arrays by today's standards (compared to a modern-day
>fighter).

Let's see, 1000 x 100km = 100,000km.  So if Traveller sensors are accurate
that far out, that's still way far out.

But given the lack of air resistance, what's the max range of Traveller
missiles?  

>BTW, the new F23 is approximately 66 feet long if memory serves,
>comparable to a Traveller 10t fighter.

Umm, the F23 was a prototype.  And one that was not chosen.  The F22 what
your were looking for?

 James Garriss                          System Engineer, MITRE               
 jpg@langley.mitre.org          http://www.cs.odu.edu/~garriss      

Unix csh/sh command:
% If I had a ( for every $ the Congress spent, what would I have?
Too many ('s.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 09:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: RICE papers, Vegans

Stephen Johnson wrote:

>    Where, pray tell, can one find a copy of these RICE Papers???
>
>Stephen

Joe Heck has them up on the Missouri site at:

http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe/traveller/archive/Rice_Papers/

I wrote the papers for Vincennes, Northammon, Kubishush, Mertactor,
Porozolo, Jae Tellona and Rhylanor.

I've taken some of them and modified them for use in my campaign. I have
all the TNE sector stats up on my web site. I'm providing links to
formatted versions of RICE papers including, in some cases, world map GIFs
and other graphics. If you're interested, go to my site at:

http://www.cris.com/~Cgriffen/traveller/deneb.shtml

Go to "Known Space" and drill down into the sector stats to find some of
these. Currently only subsectors J and K of Deneb Sector have active RICE
paper links.

Be warned: this is New Era information and may not apply to campaigns in
other eras.


> I was wondering if anyone out there knew where I could get a picture of a
>Vegan(s)?
>
> Thanks in advance
>bri <bri@teleport.com>

The old CT book, Library Data N-Z has them. Great picture.

I've illustrated a couple of Vegan scouts that appeared with, I believe,
the second installment of Harold Hale's "Children of Earth" Solomani Rim
setting in The Traveller Chronicle #11. You can be the judge of whether the
illustration is up to par! <g>

I can email you a GIF copy of my illustration if you're interested. It's
probably under 100k. Just email me at cgriffen@concentric.net and I'll
forward you a copy.

Best,

Chris

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 10:27:26 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Retirement Pay for 2 Careers

Hmmmm...I'd make that a situational call. 'Double-dipping' is certainly a
common enough occurence in RL to say that yeah, they do get some sort of
retirement pay from both careers, especially if one is military and the
other is civilian...However, if they, for instance, spend three terms in
the Navy, then two in the marines, they'll only get one military pension,
based on their total number of terms in the military.

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs


On Sat, 5 Apr 1997, James Garriss wrote:

> If a character serves 3 terms in one career and 2 more in another, does he
> still get retirement pay?
> 
>  James Garriss                          System Engineer, MITRE               
>  jpg@langley.mitre.org          http://www.cs.odu.edu/~garriss      
> 
> Unix csh/sh command:
> % If I had a ( for every $ the Congress spent, what would I have?
> Too many ('s.
> 

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 19:56:16 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
Subject: Re: Preliminary THUUD Design - Comments, Please

I have designed a needle 600dton hull that fits well in with
Guys huge table of hulss. I have put up my own hull table at
http://www.uio.no/~tommygr/TRAVELLER/Hulls.html 
It might be worth noticing that the hull is designed for TL12
and uses TL12 Superdense material.

Hope this might help.

Tommy Grav

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 11:36:40 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

> If Emperors Arsenal is M0 then hopefully there'll be other weapons so that
> M0 develops a feel of its own. That was one good thing with the Foss art:
> Everything in the M0 era looks blobby, rysty and scientifically
> implausible. Thos saying that this is unrealistic look at american cars in
> the 1950 AD era.

Let me clarify.  I do want MO to have new weapons and develop a feel 
of its own.  I just want to be able to continue my 1100's campaign 
with the T4 rules without reinventing the wheel.

I think that T4 should have all the old weapons in it as well as the 
new.

As far as the look, you are right--MO has a feel of its own, and that 
feel is implausible.  The problem is that, eventhough MO is 1000 
years in CT's past, it is also over 4000 years in the future of the 
1950 AD era.   Arms in the year 0 should be much more advanced than 
conceptual designs from Terra's 1950's.

The trick is too look old for CT standards but futuristic and modern 
by present day Earth standards.

And Foss is just not pulling that off.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 11:36:41 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Question about the MMT Task System

>         It seems I have missed something. I thought that the new Task System
> proposed by Marc used a "half die" somewhere, and the Referee's Screen
> states something a progression like ... 2D, 2D+, 3D, indicating the presence
> of this half die.
>         But I have just found Marc's post detailing the new task system...
> and I cannot find any half dice. I'm a bit confused. Could somebody explain
> which is the Task System that has been discussed, and which Task system is
> going into the Deluxe version?
>         Thanks!
> 
> >From: CardSharks@aol.com
> >Subject: Tasks (Draft 022297)
> (Snip)
> >Task Statement:
> >	(characteristic + skill) +/- modifiers < difficulty (nD)
> (Snip)
> >Task Difficulties
> >Difficulty Level	Dice Code	Typical Success
> >Easy	                     auto           100%
> >Average	              2D		
> >Difficult	              3D		
> >Formidable	              4D		
> >Staggering	              5D		
> >Impossible	              6D		
> >	If an Easy task is attempted using a default skill, the Dice Code is 1D.

After some debate here on the TML, we pointed out to Marc how steep 
these curves would be and that the attrib + stat method of 
determining a target number would be too hard to obtain on some of 
these levels.

Marc ammended the difficulty list to:

	Easy		1D/Auto
	Average		2D
	Difficult		2.5D
	Formidable	3D
	Staggering	4D
	Impossible	5D

And, I hate to keep harping on it, but I want T4 to be the best it 
can be.  I'm just not seeing that with the products that have been 
produced.

Let's really fix this thing and come up with a book that is 
fantastic.  Get rid of that damn half die.  Use a system like KBv2.0 
or something similar.

We keep bitching about T4's problems, and when we have a chance to 
really fix it, a true fix is ignored.

I'm tired of broken T4 stuff.

Kenneth.	

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 13:04:43 -0500
From: Paul Walker <tiger@goldinc.com>
Subject: APRIL THUDDD

Just a reminder, April 15th is more than just tax day here in the US, it is
Final THUDDD day on the ISBA and TML lists.  Get those designs in soon and
avoid the rush. ;)

I only have three entries for now.  I hope more of you will be entering a
design. :)

    Paul {tiger}
     tiger@goldinc.com
     http://www.goldinc.com/~tiger

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 11:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>
Subject: Solomani Missile Boats (Re: Fighters)

  For those who have played the board game Imperium (ancestor of
Traveller), the missile boat idea rings a bell.  The Solomani have them in
their force mix.  No beam weapons, lots of missiles (like what cruisers or
larger ships have), but crappy armor.  Plus, they are cheap, cheap, cheap. 
Using them is a bit of a crap shoot - if you get lucky you can cream the
Vilani, but if you miss at long range, heaven help you when they get
close. 

  This makes lots of sense for low tech levels of the period - missile
boats are a cheap way of challenging much larger ships.

______________________________
Dr. Mark Clark
Oregon Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 20:53:59 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors

>My model for grav focussing is that the system fires a grav pulse that
>travels with the beam, pulling it in by just enough to counteract the
>spreading due to diffraction (this requires much more reasonable field
>strengths than a point source in front of the laser would) - so it won't
>work for sensors.
>
>Bruce

For those stupid active sensors it could help keeping the outgoing pulse
togeter.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1152
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Monday, April 7 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1153



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re:  Boarding, Fighters and Such
Re: TL & the Darrians
TLs of Imperiums I, II and III
Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)
Subject: Fighters revisted
4Sale: Signal-GK 12
Re: Fighters (as missile launchers)
Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters
Excellent SSDS Spreadsheet
Re: T4 Game Screen and UWP
Re: Info needed!
Re: AWACS Starship 
Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: Grav Cities in Gas Giants
Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters
Re: Fighter Design
Re: Vegans
Re: Rotating ships
Re: AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)
Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
Re: matching vectors (new questions)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 97 19:50 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re:  Boarding, Fighters and Such

In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970404161800.006bf16c@wwwjci.lanl.gov>

<< Now to my answer for boarding actions.  Psionic
teleportation.  OOO - AAA, I love Zhodani boarding
actions.  Why the hell the Zhos lost the 5FW I'll
never know!!! >>

Tell me about it - my players use it all the time!

A few problems:

- - knowledge of destination

- - range

- - matching vectors

    ---------=========oooooooooOOOOOOOOooooooooo=========---------
Andrew M J Boulton                  http://www.compulink.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 20:52:16 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: TL & the Darrians

>I can't come up with any scenario that allows a university to survive
>yet destroys the knowledge it contains. Can you?
>
>
>      Hans Rancke
>University of Copenhagen
>     rancke@diku.dk

Well this sole surviving University happens to be only arts and humaniora.
They helped in rebuilding Darrian by being the sole surviving depository of
law, history et c. Actually they're responsible for the preservation of
flame sculpture that blossomed to its fullest just prior to the
catastrophe.
My Cr 0.02


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 10:44:34 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: TLs of Imperiums I, II and III

>Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 16:21:47 +0200
>From: "Mark Seemann" <mark@dk-online.dk>
>4/4-97 Scott Ellsworth wrote:
>> [canonical answer on tech level of Vilani and the ROM]
>
>According to Referee's Companion, p. 34:
>Vilani:
>- -5430  TL 11

>Second Imperium:
>- -2210  TL 12

>Third Imperium:
>1000  TL 15

>Hope this helps

Yes, indeed.

Could we please, then make very, very sure that _everyone_ writing
supplements for the Traveller world knows this well.

I suspect many authors read the list, so please note - if you put a TL13+
object in a RoM site, then you had best have a very good reason.  No TL14
vac suits, and no TL 14 plasma guns need apply.

If you need high tech goodies, there are always ancients, and other long
dead civilizations.  (I litter my world with people who got to high tech
levels, and then fell or were pushed.  I also have may legends of the
Cities of Gold.)

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 11:51:37 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)

>Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 19:40:18 -0500
>From: James Garriss <jpg@langley.mitre.org>

>>True enough.  But then why bother bringing the fighter?  Just shoot
>>the smaller, harder to hit missile.
>
>Someone good at game-design help me out.  Isn't the answer to "why bring
>the fighter" *money*?

This is why I have fighters used a lot for anti-piracy, where all you
really need to do is get a military grade laser turret and a military grade
sensor suite out to where the bad guys are.  Civvie hulls are **fragile**,
and most pirates are civilian designs, somewhat toughened.

>I would think missiles consume some sort of fuel.
>The farther away the missiles are fired, the more fuel they need, the
>greater their comm requirements (or the better their sensors have to be),
>and the bigger their housing.  All of these cost money.  Right?

True - so one puts the platform as close as possible to the action where it
will not get blasted to vapor.  On the other hand, since fighters are
fragile due to size, you are usually better with a bigger ship if a small
number of fighters is not enough to handle it.  I would imagine that a
squadron of three 20t fighters is large enough to make life difficult for a
typical small pirate, and a few 100t SBDs will make life difficult for
anything up to a destroyer-sized hull.

>>Aircraft		Space_fighter
...
>>ship-like sensors	carries much less capable sensors
>
>I'm not disagreeing, just curious.  Why is the game designed such that
>smaller ships (ie fighters) carry "much less capable sensors"?

I believe they used the baseline argument.  For the kind of resolution need
for the weapons to do what they claim, they figured out the size of the
sensor array needed.  The ship cannot easily mount an array much smaller
than the hull, unless it can handle a lot of stress in heavy maneuvering.
(I have allowed people to mount compensators, etc. for large arrays, but it
costs in space and money.)

One is usually better giving tight beam hand offs to a fighter squadron
from the better and larger sensors around, but then the maneuvers must be
planned in advance, and woe betide you if the enemy figures out your
maneuver plan.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 11:51:00 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Subject: Fighters revisted

>Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 01:35:03 +1000 (EST)
>From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>

>On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Andrew Vallance wrote:
>>...They
>> just don't have the size to mount the sensors of a big ship and their
>> crews aren't large enough for any slack.
>
>They dont need the sensors of a big ship.

They need one good enough to target at range.  If they use energy weapons
at all, then they will need to see what they are shooting at.

If, OTOH, you assume missiles, then the missiles get very expensive, and it
becomes important to ask whether a fighter is the best platform to deliver
the expensive missiles.

If the opposition is civilian, then perhaps.  If not, then you have a problem.

>> Carrying a weapon is very different from being able to target with it.
...

>Okay, lets assume that the weapon is a smart device, has inbuilt
>targeting. Maybe its so smart that it homes in on transponder signals.

Then the weapon needs that equipment, and you get the minimum size argument
again.

>> A battleship (100,000Td+) could quite concievably handle several hundred
>> missile attacks and probably absorb quite a few that get through.

>Yes of course, but the orginal poster used 1 battlerider vs an equal
>tonnage of fighters, which i think is wrong (and i stated so) but i
>remained within the confines of the argument.

In fact, given the high cost of the computing equipment and sensor
packages, fighters cost _more_ per ton than a battleship.  They are handy,
though, in that you can buy just one or two fighters for a system's gas
giant.  If it comes to a standing fight, fighters are not competitive in cost.

>> >Dont forget, lives are generally more expendable then hardware.
>> 
>> Most certainly not, especially for pilots! Hardware is expendable, lives
>> are not.

>Of course it is a waste, let me qualify.  Im speaking within the confines
>of the argument.  Losing a hundred pilots (excessive, but usefull for
>illustration) is pitful compared to the destruction (and loss of life
>thereof) a battlerider.

But the Battle rider that a hundred pilots and fighters are going to be
able to kill is cheaper and has a smaller crew than the hundred fighters.

>Also, pilot scarceness is culturally linked as well as resource linked.

True.  It still costs a lot of time to create the crew, if you want them to
be competent enough to be worth using in a very expensive small craft.

...
>Im assuming that the opposing powers are of equal resource strength (large
>empires perhaps?) and wouldnt have a great problem with training new
>pilots - which still doesnt justfy wasting them though.

The first half perhaps, but not the second.  It always costs to train new
crew, and you always must use them in a way that maximizes their
effectiveness.

>> The fighter/ship analogy is not a good one, a far better one is FAC/ship.
>> space fighters don't have the massive speed advantage. Throw 100+ Osa II
>> against a Iowa plus escorts and the Iowa wins. Space fighters won't be able
>> to do the hit and run that modern aircraft rely on against ships.
>
>So, the assumption (which may well be right - i havnt played traveller in
>years, and never played the current version) is that Battleships, in the
>main, no matter what size, will have 6g acceleration?

>So, no fleet in the known universe can outrun an equal tech fleet?  You
>can never have a manevreability advantage over another vessel?  It doesnt
>cost excessively much to equip a cruiser or higher vessel with 6g manvr.
>engines?

No.  Don't be disingenuous.

What people have bee trying to say is that the acceleration of ships in
Traveller is pretty darn close, as they only differ usually by a 10-15% at
a given tech level.

If I design a ship that might get hit by fighter waves, and I think I need
the drive oomph, then I put it in there.  These are the same design
tradeoffs that the fighter designer made, and I suspect they will be
closely related.  It will cost as much or more for the fighter squadron to
get the drive it wants.

In simple terms - fighters cost less on an individual basis, but they are
not better platforms per dollar.  They are only useful if a few of them are
good enough to solve the problem you have.

>Now, im sorry, but if thats how traveller is now, i think thats wrong.
>Also, if thats the case, why would you build anyship at all without 6g
>acceleration?

You are not listening, I suspect.  Fighters are not intrinsically faster
under the assumptions of the universe; you can build anything with high
accel.  You may choose not to.  As a result, if combat ships need to move
quickly, then they will be built with that acceleration.

You have proposed that high accel would help a fighter, but it would not
have much, if any, that is higher than the ships it was facing.  At least,
not for long.

Slow boats and pinnaces have different missions, and so they get more or
less drive.  If fighters are attacking the battleship, and speed is useful,
then they battleship would have been built with the drives it needed, and
it would cost less per gun in both money and pilots than the small fighters.

I have not forgotten jump drives.  The are big and expensive, which is why
battle riders usually win such a duel.  This is also why it is hard to
attack a fixed base - it is cheaper to build a fixed base with a given
amount of combat oomph than a jump ship.

>> Carriers rely almost entirely on their ability to engage
>> the enemy before they can be engaged.
>
>Which is the exact point i was making when i mentioned the carrier vs
>surface ship.  Of course a HS vs CV would win, but thats an unrealistic
>comparison in the sense that you have deprived the CV of its "air" power.

Except that there is no air power in traveller.  None.

It is not unrealistic; it is a corollary of the technology.  If you do not
like it, propose new technology.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 11:59:42 -0700 (MST)
From: Jerry Sanders <kalin@bambam.swlink.net>
Subject: 4Sale: Signal-GK 12

Hi - by a fluke, I have four extra copies of Signal-GK #12 (the latest
issue). Signal-GK is a British pro-zine devoted to Traveller. This
particular issue has 40 pages, plus two digest sized booklets for
subsectors D & G (Iiradu & Khandi) of Dagudashaag Sector. As always, the
articles and illo.'s are outstanding. I will sell them for $10.00 (US)
which includes postage to the first four people who respond.

Ad Astra,
Paul Sanders

P.S. I will also throw in deckplans for the "Swift" and "Lance" shuttle
and fighter/interceptor.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 12:12:54 -0700
From: jdconnors@genmagic.com (joel connors)
Subject: Re: Fighters (as missile launchers)

>The hstorical reason for the supremacy of the carrier is very simple, it
>can be summed up in one word: Range. A battleship is capable of absorbing
>far more damage than a carrier, can carry far better defences and can
>fight in conditions which will leave a carrier floundering. The only
>advantage the carrier has is range. A battleship can engage targets maybe
>40Km away, a carrier 400Km away. In space this advantage is much less.
>Plus much of the aircrafts advantages depend on recoving a significant
>number of lost crews, which isn't going to happen in space.
>

Hmmmm, let us take the Battleship vs the carrier analogy another step (sure
why not the horse is already dead, what will another hand grenade do?).

So You have a Carrier with 500 20 ton fighters. Each fighter carries 2-4
standard missiles. Now to add some realism let us assume that the carrier
has at least 2 (Say 2000 tons each) destroyers in the van to detect ships
before the Carrier is detected. We'll call this TFA (Task Force A)
The opposing force a 100,000 ton Battleship with Spinal mount, weapons bay,
screens and more. This ship will also have two destroyers in the van. We'll
call this TFB.

Scenario
The Destroyer screens pick up each other at long range. Since no one likes a
fair fight both call for back up. TFB pours on the power to the Battleship,
so that it can support its screen. TFA launches two waves of 250 fighters each.

Back at the main fight the Destroyers mount delay maneuvers. The Battleship
closes in to battle range. The Fighters get word from their destroyers about
the battleship. As the combat closes The battleship begins to open fire on
the destroyers of TFA. We can assume that these boys will be concentrating
on staying alive and well. Of course when a 100kt ship fires at 2kt's you
can assume one will die if not both. Meanwhile the fighters scream in to
outside range and unleash their missile compliment. No sooner do they fire,
than they pull up and out to return home. At this point each destroyer has
been targeted with 500 missiles each.

End result both sides have likely lost both of their destroyers. Even
battle, well not really. You see the carrier while waiting for it's little
babies to return whistles another task force of say three heavy cruisers. On
the other hand the battleship is sitting there with a general idea that
there is a carrier out that away somewhere.

Even if the battleship engage the fighters, at the range and speed you can
assume few fighters would be hit before breaking off, from the fight.

Fighters are not only Dog fighters, they can also hit and run from a
distance, keeping their capital ships hidden.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 14:45:48 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

At 11:15 AM 4/7/97 +0100, anders.backman@server.aniware.se wrote:
>>major snip<<<
>OK the basic argument is about active sensors superiority due to them being
>able to calculate the range more exactly and faster than passives. The post
>you're (Sam Thomas) replying to said that we're not that interested in
>range when shooting with beam weapons (true). You then concoct a really
>stupid scenario the passives would use in order to "prove" the superiority
>of actives.

Hmmm.. I did not state what type of sensors were being used in example. I
was trying to point out that the a range deviation can/will have an effect
upon Fire Control solution in non idealized combat situations. Just as no
one would want to enter combat at a severe disadvantage like going in
backwards, why should approaching missiles/targets give the defending ship
a bigger advantage than possible.

Say that the missiles are programming to approach a target vessel as a non
direct manner such as crossing angle. The missile would then turn into the
proper attack angle at the last possible moment. The will allow the missile
to take advantage of "any" range deviation errors that might exist. It
would also have the have extra benefit of making it harder for the
defending ships to figure out you will be the target of specific missile.

>You basically assume that passive sensors will not shoot at the predicted
>future angular location but the actives will. Please enlight me if I have
>misunderstood your reasoning.
>BTW In your example the TOT will be neglible so in that particular case it
>is actually OK to shoot at the last angular position with
>lasers/mesons/neutrons.
>

I was making the firing prediction based upon fire control solution
estimate of future position. I did not state if the sensor was active or
passive. I did not want to muddle the example with fine distinctions. But
my impression is that any Fire Control System linked to any sensor(active
or passive) will always try to place the "bullets" at the place where the
target will "hopefully" be at based upon the accuracy of the data from the
sensor(active or passive

I also did not state the actual range to the target/missile just the range
error. So TOT will be something that you will not be able to properly predict.

But the example could be used a good reason to rotate/maneuver your ship to
bring the target's Z axis into alignment with one of the firing ships
batteries.

Passive sensors = greater detection range, less precision in range calcs,
and a                   longer time to calc target range, and movement.
Active sensors  = greater precision in range and movement calcs, faster
time in                   target related calc(range, movement etc.), but
range inferior to                   passives.

I am not tying to state that one type of sensor is superior to another,
just each has its weaknesses and strong points.

- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 12:58:29 -0700
From: Mark Bradley <MBradley@gwgate.swrcb.ca.gov>
Subject: Excellent SSDS Spreadsheet

I just wanted to post a thank you on the TML to Andy Akins for the work
he did in creating a very comprehensive spreadsheet for SSDS.  While
the spreadsheet has a few limitations, Andy has gone to the work of
including all the tables from SSDS.  The most notable limitation is that all
the components must have the same TL, but this would not be hard to
amend.

I have one question though:  What's a jump capsule?

Nice work Andy.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 16:38:00 -0400
From: Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org>
Subject: Re: T4 Game Screen and UWP

On Sun, 6 Apr 1997, JEFF ZEITLIN wrote:

>   I just got mine from IG (along with additional copies of M0
>   and FS) and I was looking it over - there are four digits in
>   the UWP printed on the back that I've never seen:  Whatinhell
>   are "Resources", "Labor", "Infrastructure", and "Culture"?
>   There are _no_ rules that I am aware of for generating or
>   interpreting them...

Joe Walsh Responded:

>There will be by the end of the month....Pocket Empires. :)

Hmmm...this is very interesting.

I could have sworn I saw this extended thing when i was fiddling around with 
GAL2.1.  I was inputting core subsector data when i saw stuff at the end of 
the UPP, i thought they were for the Stellar Spectra, but to my suprise i 
got information simmilar to the same mentioned above.  I played around with 
the numbers and got different stuff.

This may be different, I will check when i get home :)

The Commander at the office
(Pay no attention to that man behind the Black Curtain,
It's only Lucan)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 09:03:42 -0700
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: Re: Info needed!

Leonard Erickson wrote:

> 1. Jump duration and/or accuracy
>         So far all I've found is the stuff that says "X parsecs" and
>         "one week" in all the rules, and the 120 + 2d*6 duration rule
>         from Starship Operator's manual. What other references are
>         there?

You mean besides Marc's "official" post a while back?

IIRC, Marc's article in JTAS (entitled "Jumpspace Jumpspace Jumpspace")
is the first reference to 168 +/- 10% jump duration. When I get home
tonight, I'll check which issue... #22?

> 2. creating "communications routes"
>         The first edition of the "little black books" had a table for
>         determining if there was a "route" between systems based on the
>         distance and starport type. I can't find my copies, if someone
>         else can, please post.

Neat! Ya, Post it someone, quick!

- -- 
====== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /---- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X->  http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275  \
 -----------------------/ \=========== Eschew Obfuscation ===========

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 16:11:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: AWACS Starship 

In a message dated 4/5/97 3:46:23 AM, Daniel Poulin wrote:

<<What about mounting advanced sensors on missilles?  They would be difficult
to hit and
yet provide all the jamming and "sensing" required?>>

The diffulty with this is that Good EMS passive arrays take up too much
surface area to mount on a "missile" (per FFS)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 09:18:04 -0700
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

Anders Backman wrote:
> 
> >Another very good reason: A laser does more damage the longer it is
> >trained on a particular spot. (My childhood experiments with plastic
> >toys, sunlight, and magnifying glasses proved this) If the ship rotates,
> >you force an attacking laser to distribute its energy over a greater
> >area, thus reducing penetration and hopefully, damage.
> 
> You cannot have the cake and eat it. Either spinning brings more guns to
> bear with no adverse side effects OR spinning makes the damage less severe.
> If spinning lessens damage then you assume beam lasers who definately would
> be adversely affected by spinning.

If the attacker spins, he/she can compensate by adjusting the "mirror"
used in his laser, to keep it trained on the (projected) location of the
target. Don't make the assumption that the lasers are "fixed" on the
side of the ship, or that the spin rate is so high that it adversely
affects targeting.

I was referring to the *defensive* advantage of spinning. ie. when
someone trains their lasers on *you*.

Yes, the cake can be had and eaten as well.

- -- 
====== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /---- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X->  http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275  \
 -----------------------/ \=========== Eschew Obfuscation ===========

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 16:11:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Grav Cities in Gas Giants

In a message dated 4/6/97 7:20:07 PM, Leonard Erickson has the final reply :

<<<<You're at the bottom of a huge gravity well,>>
>
> Are you? How much does the gravity fall off between the "surface" of a gas
> giant and the upper atmosphere?

It falls off via the inverse square law. And gas giants don't really
have "surfaces". What we seen in telescopes *is* the upper atmosphere!
>>

So, what would be the gravity in the upper atmosphere?

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 16:11:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters

In a message dated 4/5/97 3:23:10 AM, Merrik wrote:

<<*blink*  missiles have infinite range.  I let them coast towards
your fleet from a distance, and when they get within a single turn's
burn of a target, BOOM.>>

However there is a time factor with missiles. It takes time for them to coast
toward the enemy fleet. A fleet that may not be there when the missile would
get to a single turns burn. Missiles carried by "fighters" can have their
courses corrected, so to speak. 

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 16:12:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fighter Design

In a message dated 4/5/97 4:42:37 AM, Roderick Darroch Elliot wrote:

<<Lewis Roberts made the following eminently sensible suggestion:

[snip]
>
>I say we make the next THUDD about designing fighters.  They are pretty
>intersting to build.  We would have to agree on a mission
>specification.  Heavy fighter, light fighter, long range patrol craft
>(week duration), short range patrol craft, sensor/picket fighter,
>ground attack, but once you have one built, it is easy enough to
>modifiy it to another mission.


	I'm game...>>

I think I would be as well, but (and I hate to sound like a newbie here) what
is a THUDD session?

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 19:50:33 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Vegans

bri <bri@teleport.com> wrote:

<<I was wondering if anyone out there knew where I could get a picture of a
Vegan(s)?>>

Assuming that you mean the minor race, try the MT adventure Arrival
Vengeance, IIRC. Otherwise, try the Vegetarian society.... ;)

    -Dom Mooney- dom@cybergoths.u-net.com
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
"But everything is still the same; passing the time, passing the blame.
We carry on in the same old way, we'll find out we left it too late one day,
 to say what we meant to say." - Marillion
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 16:12:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Rotating ships

In a message dated 4/5/97 4:36:16 AM, Erwin Fritz wrote:

<<Agreed. But what if you have an irregular hull and you scatter things
in oddball places. >>

Simple solution is "don't do that."

<<You seem to be making the assumption that 
spaceships have symmetrical, smooth hulls with no nooks or crannies.
What if you have a planetoid? An unstreamlined, asymmetrical ship?
These configurations means that you can't evenly distribute your
sensor arrays and, therefore, that rotating on a single axis won't
work.>>

No matter what configuration you have, you will always have an outermost
surface that is perpendicular to the axis of rotation. You can always
distribute along that surface.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 14:17:08 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)

 
> Actually, the background is zodiacal dust, at 200 - 300 K but not
> optically thick; it's much brighter than the 3K until you get out to sub-mm
> wavelengths. It'll vary a lot from system to system and even within a system
> (since it forms in the asteroid belt and spirals into the sun, there's very
> little dust outside the orbit of jupiter; systems without asteroid belts will

Ah, We had a great view of zodiacal dust last week when we went out
in the dfesert to photograph the comet (or was it the week before?
:-/

- -Merrick

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 16:10:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors

In a message dated 4/5/97 4:03:30 AM, Erwin Fritz wrote:

<<> I would agree that this would make it terribly difficult, if not
impossible,
> to dock with the ship. However, it does not significantly impact the
ability
> to hit the ship. Thus the ship could be hit with a grappel harpoon, and
> possibly restrained (depending on relative masses).

Agreed.>>

Matter is settled as far as I'm concerned, in Summary:

Boarding CAN take place, procedure is as follows:

Border ship MUST have higher G rating (equal is not good enough).

Border ship MUST match vector (thus there is a timing constraint, hiding in
an asteroid belt to jump ships isn't going to do you a heck of a lot of good
if every ship that goes by has had HOURS of acceleration applied to them,
it'll take you HOURS to match vector).

Border ship MUST be equipped with some sort of grappel harpoon.

Border ship MUST have greater relative mass in order to render victim's
maneuver (attitude jets, whatever) useless.

How much relative mass? I don't know off hand, I would say enough to make
reduce the victims maneuver to a point where it can't cause any damage with a
spin-ram.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 16:12:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

In a message dated 4/5/97 8:22:17 AM, Tod Moody wrote:

<<It may have less inertia to move, but a 6G ship is a 6G ship regardless of
it's mass. A 5 million ton ship rated at 6Gs can change its vector every bit
as quickly as a 5 ton ship rated at 6Gs. [Of course, it requires immense
amounts of thrust, and would probably turn night into day on any nearby
planets].<<<

This is a fallacy.  There is such a thing as G onset rate and smaller craft
have a very large advantage here, at least in an atmosphere.

Explain this G onset rate, it is not mentioned in the rules.

Two: we are not talking about in an atmosphere.

Tod continues:

<<It certainly would not be like the bridge of the Enterprise.  Everyone
would
have to be strapped down and preferably wearing a G suit.  Many people will
pass out at 6 Gs if not trained.  At 9 Gs most people will pass out.  Above
this there are few even well trained that can maintain consiousness.  Perhaps
a new anti-gravity device could be developed to counter the G force in manned
parts of the ship.  It would require a device to monitor current Gs, onset
rate and be able to rapidly change to match.>>

Isn't this what G-compensators are?

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1153
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Monday, April 7 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1154



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Submarine Fighters
Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)
Sensor strength analysis
Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors
Re: [T97#1145] RICE Papers
Re: Fighters
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Honest Review of Emperor's Arsenal (long)
Fighters vs Capital Ships - Missiles vs Lasers
Re: Vegans
Re: Realy extreme fighter scenario in MT
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
THUDDD FAQ v.0.1
Re: Fighters - Revisted II
Re: Fighters revisted

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 16:12:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

In a message dated 4/5/97 3:59:07 AM, Robert Flammang wrote:

<<> From: MrkGrismer@aol.com

> In TNE you can
> have more then 6G acceleration.

   In TNE, big ships as well as fighters can have more than 6G
   acceleration.  This is why there are no real fighters in Trav, only
   "gunboats".  If you want fighters to be feasable, you'll need to make
   some rules up that give them an advantage over big ships.  The
   current rules treat them exactly like big ships, only smaller.>>


I know, however in the design sequence you actuall can get more then 6G from
a small ship and still have a practical design, I haven't been able to get
much in a big ship.

G-compensation's a b**ch.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 16:12:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)

In a message dated 4/5/97 4:31:16 AM, Robert Flammang wrote:

<<(Donning professorial robes and beginning a physics lecture) Ahem,
   not true at all.  If the two beligerants have matched vectors (and if
   they are close enough to one another) then they can dogfight quite
   nicely.  If their vectors are matched, then they are standing still
   relative to one another.  When they turn on their drives, they
   accelerate, decelerate, and alter course about one another exactly
   like they would if they started from rest --- because really, they
   /are/ starting at rest.

Oops, I stand corrected. Sorry my mental reality shifted and I forgot about
relativity. (Every have one of those days where the sky is a different
color?)

Nevertheless, vectors have to be matched, and if the target ship has weeks of
acceleration behind it, weeks of acceleration (by an equal G rated ship) are
required to match vectors. This would seem (to me) to make high vector space
combat unlikely, or - at least - rare.

   <<Unfortunately, none of the tactical combat systems introduced sinced
   "Mayday" can accurately simulate this physical fact.>>

I though Brillant Lances did a fair job.

> This is why I think space battles would chiefly occur around worlds, gas
> giants, and space stations.

   <<Well, mostly battles occur around things of value. >>

That too.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 13:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Sensor strength analysis

Putting on my long-unused sonar hat, I jump into the discussion on sensor
analysis...

As has been made clear by recent postings correcting and re-correcting
math on signal-strength calculations, doing these directly (with all the
exponents and area factors and the like) is a royal pain.  That's why all
sonar calculations are not done in terms of raw power, but rather on the
logarithmic decibel scale.  10 db is one power of ten difference in signal
strength; for example, if signal A is 100 times stronger than signal B (as
measured at some detector), then A is 20 db stronger than B.  The
advantage of doing calcs on the logarithmic db scale is that
exponentiation turns into multiplication, and multiplication into
addition, vastly simplifying the math.

To use the db scale, you need a reference power/distance point.  For
example, one could use a measured flux of 1 MJ/m^2 at 1 m from the source,
and define that as 100 db (in sonar, it's set in terms of acoustic
overpressure, but the concept is the same).  Now, suppose we have a source
that is putting out 100 MJ/m^2 at 1 m, and radiating it spherically.  The
old way of figuring out what its strength at 1 km would be involves all
kinds of messy factors of pi and exponents and messy things like that.
However, in our logarithmic world, we derive:

  P(R) = P(R0) - 20logR

...where R is measured in terms of the standard basis measurement above. 
Here, R0 is 1 m, P(R0) is 120 db (100 + 2*10, because the source is two
factors of ten more powerful than the standard), R is 1000m, so R is 1000,
logR is 3, and thus the power density at 1km is 120 - 20*3, or 60 db.  You
can use the relation above to convert this back into MJ/m^2, if you like
- -- but the cool part is just by looking you can see that it is 6 orders of
magnitude, or a factor of a million, less intense than it was near the
source.

Beam spreading is measured in terms of at what angle from the beam
centerline one finds a beam intensity down 3db or 6db from the centerline
strength.  A truly linear beam will not drop with range at all; real-world
beams can be modeles as dropping as NlogR, where N is typically 1-5
depending on the focussing of the beam.

So, for some real-world examples:

Passive detection:
  Rcvd power = Target strength - 20logR

Active detection, omnidirectional 'ping':
  Rcvd power = Signal strength
                  - 20logR             // Trip to the target
                  - TA                 // Target albedo, proportion reflected
                  - 20logR             // Scattered signal back to own ship
             = SS - TA - 40logR
  TA for a perfect mirror is 0; for a stealthy craft, perhaps -40.

Active detection, beamed signal (e.g., ladar, targeting laser):
  Rcvd power = Signal strength
                  - 2logR               // Well-focussed beam
                  - TA
                  - 20logR              // Scattered signal back to own ship
             =  SS - TA - 22logR

It seems a little weird at first, but trust me, db is the only reasonable
way to talk about sensor performance.  Once you get used to it, you'll
never go back...

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 16:10:52 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors

At 09:09 AM 4/7/97 -0700, bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh) wrote:
>
>>  It is possible that someone have suggested this before, but wouldn't
>>it be possible to use gravitic focussing for *passive sensors*?
>
>My model for grav focussing is that the system fires a grav pulse that
>travels with the beam, pulling it in by just enough to counteract the
>spreading due to diffraction (this requires much more reasonable field
>strengths than a point source in front of the laser would) - so it won't
>work for sensors.
>
Have you had the time to figure out the game effects ie change in mass,
power, volume, antenna size/volume etc?
- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 97 17:18:00 -0500
From: jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN)
Subject: Re: [T97#1145] RICE Papers

s.johnson107@genie.com writes...

T::>> The expanded Legal and TL digits as presented in the RICE papers
 ::>> (toast in honor of Jeff Zeitlin and the other RICE authors) IMO
 ::>> are an excellent idea.
 ::>    Where, pray tell, can one find a copy of these RICE Papers???

 Some, but not all, can be found at
 http://www.execnet.com/~jeffz/traveler/ (note misspelling of
 Traveller); other list participants have the ones I don't.

==========================================================================
Jeff Zeitlin                                      jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com
- ---
  OLXWin 1.00b  Chief Archivist, Regency Institute for Cultural Education

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 17:32:43 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Fighters

>Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 09:41:59 -0400
>From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
>Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1133

Disregard this post please, since a) everyone is begining to see the
errors of the analogy and b) since it was written a LONG time ago 
and got sent by mistake :) 

Gotta start cleaning out my send file a litle more often, or stop letting
Real Life (tm) interfere with reading the TML <g>.

**********************************************************
  Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
 CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 14:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@*teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

I almost hate to ask, I know this has probably been discussed and I missed
the thread, but....

Where are the design rules for weapons?  Are the FF&S rules in effect for
T4?

- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP
- --------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 18:17:24 -0300
From: sboyko@nbnet.nb.ca (sboyko)
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

>From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
>It doesn't hold true in cases of, say, the damage received when a
>cannonball hits a player - it's hitting a large area of the body.

- ------------------ ^^^^^^

Okay, I don't want to play this game anymore.  Noone told me that *I* would
get shot at! :)

<grinning and ducking>

Steve Boyko

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 16:20:43 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Honest Review of Emperor's Arsenal (long)

Good God, you are not going to belive this.  The Emperor's Arsenal is 
the BEST supplement for T4 that has been produced yet.

As a matter of fact, it is one of the BEST supplements produced for 
Traveller in ANY edition.

It is the first T4 product that I am really, really excited about.  
And, you know what?  When I was reading it, I didn't even think about 
how much it cost ($22.50 US, for those who want to know).  It's funny 
how a quality product will do that to you.

Here's the run down:

Introduction--
The EA continues the trend started in the Central Supply Catalog of 
writing the guide like it was a real weapon's report.

One of the things I really liked about the CSC was that the 
"instruction" pages (the pages that tell you how to read the stats 
and such) were written like you were a Traveller character, standing 
at an info kiosk on some God forsaken planet, trying to download info 
about  the equipment.  The CSC not only told you about the specific 
types of equipment and gave their game mechanics, but it also told it 
in a way, sometimes with anecdotes and examples of how the equipment 
was used, that really gave a feeling for the equipment.  

In a phrase, the CSC was more than a bland listing of equipment--it 
related the information in such a way that you felt the "atmosphere" 
of Traveller.

This is a high complement, and the EA is done the same way.  For 
instance, there is a few pages on Imperial Procurment Practices, and 
instead of just listing info on how to read the new "weapon index" 
(kind of like the UPP, only this is for weapons) in an out-of-game 
context, the EA puts this into context by making it a part of the 
"official" Imperial procurment nomenclature for databases.

Neat, huh?

The text talks about how technologically compatible weapons are based 
on the weapon's TL.  For ex, you might want to use a TL 12 sight with 
a TL 11, or even a TL 13, weapon.  Imbedded in the paragraphs is 
rules for this--and parts integration too!

Have you ever wondered where they got the cR898 designation for the 
ACR in the basic book?  I just thought they were trying to 
differentiate it from CT and make it look military-like when they 
wrote that.  Yes, that's right.  I just thought that they made it up.

But, actually, the EA explains what this designation means.  It's 
that weapon's index that I was talking about above.

cR898

c = cartridge.  uses conventional propellants to fire a projectile of 
some kind.

R = rifle.  a weapon which is normally fired from two manipulative 
appendages of most known sentient species.

898 = year.  this is the first year the weapon was manufactured in 
the Imperium.

Isn't that neat as hell?



The Articles--
The EA is also full of articles on different Traveller topics.  These 
articles are full of thought and give GMs a starting point or base 
line when they start designing things to put into their game.

For example, in the Weapon Tehnologies article, they list the theory 
behind Gauss weapons AND they list the advantages and disadvantages 
to such a weapon.

I think that this is just awesome.

Here's a list of the articles that are in the EA:

Weapon Technologies
Sighting Aids
Tactical Roles of Weapons
Chemical Weapons
No Nukes
Ammunition Costs
Law Levels

Some of these articles even have game mechanics in them.  It is a 
great job that has been done on this book, and I can't say that 
enough.



New Weapon Rules--
Yes!  New combat rules!

There's rules for weapon malfunctions and environmental hazards (you 
know, using that pistol under water or that gauss rifle in vacuum).

There's additional rules (other than the few lines in the Basic T4 
Book) on visibility.

There's rules on Area of Effect weapons, Armor Piercing rounds, the 
Backblast rockets make, remote guidance Beam Rider weapons, Directed 
Fragmentation, Explosives, Fire Control Systems, Guided Weapons, 
Minefields, Proximity Fuses, Saturation Bombing, Smart Guns, 
Torpedoes, and Tracer Fire.

There's a new attack form--Burst Fire--which is like autofire, but 
you can aim too!

There is a clarification on the Rigid Armor rule from the T4 main 
book--and if you don't like that rule, they offer an optional rule 
for using blunt trauma damage with rigid armor.

There's a new rule that will decrease the damage a weapon does 
(delivering a KE attack) due to long range.

And, for all of you out there who hate the idea that, in the T4 main 
book, a body pistol can fire up to 1500 meters with an 
Impossible task, there is now a fix.  The new rule limits weapons 
based on their effective range.

For instance,  a body pistol, in the T4 main book, has an 
effective range of Contact (up to 3 meters), but with an Impossible 
task, it can fire out to 1500 meters.

Well, the new EA rule fixes that--limiting the weapon's range to 
Short (up to 45 meters).

And, last but not least, there is a new rule detailing zero-G recoil 
for weapons.

Cool stuff.  Cool stuff all.


The Weapons--
The weapons are laid out in sections;  each section details a tech 
level.  There are 17 sections detailing weapons from TL 0 to Tl 16.  
Both new, never before seen weapons are detailed along with our old 
favorites from the classic CT era like the Gauss Rifle, the auto 
assault shotgun, grenades, etc.

Each section starts with a few paragraphs on weapons common to that 
tech level, then there is a long listing of weapons with descriptions 
and game stats.  Some of these--many of them, but not all--are 
illustrated.

And here's one of the true gems that the EA offers--THE ILLUSTRATIONS 
ARE AWESOME!!!!!

No more of that crappy Chris Foss stuff!

Remember the neat illos that DGP used to put on their equipment 
sheets?  These are just as good.

Great stuff, great stuff.  You really get a good idea of these 
weapons from these pictures.  And, they all look functional.

There is a multitude of weapons in the EA, from the TL 0 Axe to the 
TL 15 Battle Pod, and let's not forget the TL 16+ chapter with 
fragmentary knowledge on postulated weapons and Ancient discoveries.



The Other Stuff--
There's a chapter by chapter listing in the table of contents, and at 
the end of the book, there's a multi-table listing of all the weapons 
in the book that includes their game machanics (for quick reference 
of every weapon in the book).

Just by eye-balling the lists, I'm guessing that there is around 250 
different weapons in this book.  From cover to cover, it is packed 
with USEABLE info and INTERESTING stuff.  It's got great art, well 
thought out weapons, and new rules that were sorely needed.

In short, this book is a Traveller player's dream come true--a book 
that is as good as any that has ever been produced for Traveller.

I was trying to find something that I didn't like about the book as I 
wrote this review.  I try to keep my reviews honest and relate both 
the pros and cons of the products I review.

Look as I might, I could only find one thing wrong with EA, and this 
is so trivial, it is hardly worth mentioning.

What is it?  The cover art.  If they had got this right, I would 
consider this a perfect book.

No...strike that.  Even with the cover art, I still consider it a 
perfect book.

The front and back covers contain the old Foss prints again.  What 
adds insult to injury here is that they are Foss pics that we have 
already seen before in other supplements for T4.  It's recycled 
crappy Foss pictures.

The cover is that pic where there's a very phallic looking weapon on 
some sort of tower on an artic mesa jutting out from the sea and two 
giant claws are surfacing from the cold water to get it.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.  What's more, the weapon depicted is obviously a 
very large weapon mounted (and bigger than) on a building.  Since 99% 
of the weapons in EA are small arms, even if you like the pic, it is 
hard to draw an connection here.  This is obviously some sort of huge 
weapon that looks like it can destroy ships  in orbit on a book about 
rifles and pistols.

Hmmm.  Bad choice for the cover.

And on the back, we get that old pic of the crashed, mech-sized robot 
with a castle in the background and people walking over its fallen 
hulk.

Again, this is not appropriate for the EA even if you like the Foss 
pic.  The EA is about SMALL arms--not large, multi-ton, ship-sized 
mechs.

But, to tell you the truth, I just don't care about the cover this 
time.

I'm telling you.  I'm giving the EA my highest rating.  Greg Porter 
did an incredible job on this book.

Go get it.  I'm not kidding about this.  You won't be sorry.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 20:37:35 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Fighters vs Capital Ships - Missiles vs Lasers

On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Rupert Boleyn wrote:

>  It seems unlikely to me that even tradintionalist Vilani wouldn't have
> learnt something from the loss of the First Imperium at the hands of the
> Terrans. I think that Terran ships would've used missiles a lot, as the use
> of Anglic suggests they were West dominated, and would thus have favoured
> man-power saving standoff weapons. This encourages the installation of good
> anti-missile point defences, which would work damn well on fighters, as well.

Im not sure if this is correct.  The only reference i have is the
boardgame "Imperium" here it states that the terrans had developed the
Missile Boat to counter the fleet wide use of missile weapons of the
Imperial Navy as opposed to the laser dominated terran navy.


SaHua,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


	Technology is dominated by those who manage what they cannot understand.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 20:33:05 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Vegans

On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Anders Backman wrote:

> >On Sun, 6 Apr 1997, bri wrote:
> >
> >Actually for simplicity sake i changed the vegans to human looking
> >matriachel green skin race:)  I did this because i have a picture of
> >green skinned woman ... necessity drive invention!
> >
> >>  I was wondering if anyone out there knew where I could get a picture of a
> >> Vegan(s)?
> >>
> >>  Thanks in advance
> >> bri <bri@teleport.com>
> >>
> >
> >
> >        It's intuitively obvious!
> 
> There's a picture of a Vegan in CT Supplement Library Data (the one with
> the second half of the alphabet). There's also a picture of a Vegan in the
> DGP Solomani alien supplement. I don't have the page number but the Vegan
> is the one with a large divers cyclope like face.
> For thos preferring grin skinned women there's a better RPG for you: FASAs
> Star Trek.

hehehe  True, but you can never go wrong with green skinned women - no?



SaHua,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


	Technology is dominated by those who manage what they cannot understand.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 20:54:55 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Realy extreme fighter scenario in MT

On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Brad Vender wrote:

This is an intresting scenario, im glad brad did it.

>     2.  Depending on the ships being used, the battleship has atleast
>         800 crew members.  The attacking swarm of fighters has around
>         2500 crew if the Fighting Ships fighter is used.

Okay so lets look at the loss of life, assuming the fighters lose %50,
about 1250 pilots (i dont know what the recovery rate would be, i'll
assume that all the fighters are equipped with auto-eject/lifepod combos, so some
pilots would be recovered) and the capital ship lost (captured/killed)
1600 crew members, as well as two battleships which, worse yet, if they
can be salvaged equals a double loss (1 for depriving the enemy and
another 1 for the victor gaining it).

So im wondering if this would make fighters a little more viable?  I
still woudnt accept such losses (unless i could salvage something like
50%-75% of the fighters downed).

Maybe something else that can be tried is to give the side with the
battleships another battleship and add a battleship to the fighters swarm.
This way the bigger ships would have to worry about another battleship
whos hammering away at them, while the little fighters are stinging away
doing more damage than normal because of the decrease in attack potential lost.

Want to try this brad?

As a tactic i would have the fighter-battleships defense beefed up, as one
of its functions is to draw fire away from the fighters.



SaHua,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


	Technology is dominated by those who manage what they cannot understand.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 19:00:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, sboyko wrote:

> Okay, I don't want to play this game anymore.  Noone told me that *I* would
> get shot at! :)
> 
> <grinning and ducking>

[G]  Well, it's a gaming tradition to have those slip through a few 
times. :)   What was the one in TNE?  Hmmm.


- -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: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 20:23:11 -0400
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: THUDDD FAQ v.0.1

MrkGrismer wrote:

>In a message dated 4/5/97 4:42:37 AM, Roderick Darroch Elliot wrote:
>
><<Lewis Roberts made the following eminently sensible suggestion:
>
>[snip]
>>
>>I say we make the next THUDD about designing fighters.  They are pretty
>>intersting to build.  We would have to agree on a mission
>>specification.  Heavy fighter, light fighter, long range patrol craft
>>(week duration), short range patrol craft, sensor/picket fighter,
>>ground attack, but once you have one built, it is easy enough to
>>modifiy it to another mission.
>
>
>	I'm game...>>
>
>I think I would be as well, but (and I hate to sound like a newbie here) what
>is a THUDD session?


	It's THUDDD: TML Highly Unofficial and Democratic Design Derby.

	Basically, it's an informal and semi-organized ship design
competition wherein TML'ers compete in designing ships.  Submissions are
sent to the person running it (it used to be me, currently is Paul Walker,
and soon will be Craig Berry), who collects the designs and then posts
them.  TML'ers vote, and the winner is announced.  The prizes to date have
been a gold-plated ASCII biscuit donated by Commander X, and an
iridium-plated rock donated by Sir Arameth Gridlore.

	There are rule-like thingies and suggestions that could be
considered submission guidelines if this were a more uptight contest.
These are usually promulgated by the poor bozo running the THUDDD.

	If you have any more questions, ask Paul Walker at <tiger@goldinc.com>.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 00:25:27 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Fighters - Revisted II

On Tue, 8 Apr 1997 02:11:25 +1000 (EST), you wrote:

> If i have one car which can do 0-100km in 6 seconds, and another that =
can
> do 0-100km in 10 seconds, but both have  atop speed of 250km/hour then =
car
> A is tha faster car.  The reason it is faster is because of the way the
> engine is built (and of course other factors, but the engine is =
primary),
> which is what i was getting at, vaguely admitedly (well, not to me:), =
but
> the same thing.

No.  Car "A" is the quicker car, but they are both equally "fast".

Both cars could very well have the exact same engine-- let's say that
they are both 350 Chev engines producing 250 hp.  250 hp will provide
enough power to allow the car to continue to accelerate until the
amount of drag on the body reaches a certain point.  At the moment
this happens, that 250 hp is exactly enough to offset that drag, as
well as any internal friction of the drivetrain.

One engine could be built differently to produce more horsepower,
allowing it to accelerate further past this point until the drag
prevented it from accelerating any further.  The shape of the body of
the car can also reduce drag, allowing greater acceleration and top
speed.  Finally, the transmissions of the two cars could be geared
differently (which is actually the main contributor to top speed
limitations).

The point that I am trying to make is that cars and trucks have all of
these limitations (they are all forms of friction); a spacecraft
operating in a vacuum does not.  While interstellar dust and micro
meteorites might produce some drag, it wouldn't be noticeable until
you reach VERY, very high speeds.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 00:25:25 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Fighters revisted

On Tue, 8 Apr 1997 01:35:03 +1000 (EST), you wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Andrew Vallance wrote:
>=20
> > A big ship can put its critical systems at its core. Making them all =
but
> > impossible to hit. You will be able to hurt a ship by hitting its =
vulnerable
> > surface systems, but your unlikely to kill it. What you can do =
however is
> > soften it up for an easy kill by a bigger ship.
>=20
> True, but its more convenient to place sensors and the bridge in =
usually
> susceptable places.  Also, the spinal mount can be susceptable to =
attack
> as well as the engines.  The destruction of anyone of these things will
> badly affect the battleships combat ability.

Why would it be more convenient to place the bridge of a military
spacecraft in a "susceptible position"?  The "Azhanti High-Lightning"
class locates it's main bridge near the center of the ship.

If it is a matter of being able to look out a window, sensors or a
flying bridge could handle this function just fine.  Combat rarely
takes place within visual range anyways (if it did, you'd be in
*serious* trouble).

> > The fighter/ship analogy is not a good one, a far better one is =
FAC/ship.
> > space fighters don't have the massive speed advantage. Throw 100+ Osa=
 II
> > against a Iowa plus escorts and the Iowa wins. Space fighters won't =
be able
> > to do the hit and run that modern aircraft rely on against ships.
>=20
> So, the assumption (which may well be right - i havnt played traveller =
in
> years, and never played the current version) is that Battleships, in =
the
> main, no matter what size, will have 6g acceleration?

No.  The ship construction rules do *allow* you to build such a
battleship, though.  The limitation to maneuver drives with ratings
between 1 and 6 goes back the CT, although newer rules allow you to
partially exceed these limits.  It still can't be compared like the
Mach 2 velocities of some aircraft vs 35 knots for a surface ship :)

> Also, if i remember corecctly the High Guard rules had a limit on the
> number of turrets that a vessel could have, is this still true?  If so,
> then fighters could outgun Battleships in equal tonnange/cost (?)

No.  Weapons each have a displacement AND a surface area requirement.
The total unused surface area of the hull is what determines how many
weapons can be conceivably fit.

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1154
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Monday, April 7 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1155



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Re: Fighters revisted
Re: Space combat at the strategic or grand tactical level
Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters
Re: Honest Review of Emperor's Arsenal (long)
Emperor's Arsenal
Re: Fighters as defensive batteries.
Re: Fighters - what ranges???
Re: Fighters (as missile launchers)
Re: Subject: Fighters revisted
Re: Fighters - Revisted II
My final view on fighters in Traveller [LONG]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 17:30:01 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

At 02:44 PM 4/7/97 -0700, you wrote:
>I almost hate to ask, I know this has probably been discussed and I missed
>the thread, but....
>
>Where are the design rules for weapons?  Are the FF&S rules in effect for
>T4?

T4 uses 3G3 (Guns! Guns! Guns!) for it's small arms design sequences.  I
highly recommend this product.  For some examples of the output of 3G3, you
can look at the guns page at:

http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/guns.html

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   clown outfits.       -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 17:30:10 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Fighters revisted

At 01:35 AM 4/8/97 +1000, "Solomani" wrote:
>On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Andrew Vallance wrote:

>> The fighter is, the pilot isn't. This one fact is a vital consideration.
>> To be effective a fighter would require a very well trained crew. They
>> just don't have the size to mount the sensors of a big ship and their
>> crews aren't large enough for any slack.
>
>They dont need the sensors of a big ship.  It would be wastage.  They
>would be ordered (im assume) to go to cordinates x,y,z and engage detected
>hostiles.  They would just need targeting, and even this may be redundent 

And when enemy jamming cuts commo?  Even laser/maser commo isn't 100% reliable.

>> So can a battleship, it sits up high with good defenses against planetry
>> based fire and shoots down. Very effective. A fighter on the other hand
>> has to go down to where atmospheric interceptors (more effective than
>> general purpose space fighters) can engage.
>
>True.  Im also making an assumption here that in taking a world you dont
>want to obliterate it.  So a battleship (unstreamlined cause its cheaper)
>wouldnt have the finese for targeting as a fighter would.  Also
>battleships couldnt give much support to troops on the ground (close
>quarter support) as opposed to "we want this sector nuked" which the
>battleship would be handy for :)

A laser is a laser.  A battleship with a few *hundred* tunable lasers firing
40 times a minute, could destroy entire armored divisions.  A single 7kl
missle body could contain dozens of "flying crowbars," a guided kinetic-kill
weapon.  There are many options open to the ship's Captain concerning ground
support.

If the need for gross damage is seen, spinal mounted Meson guns will provide
a suitible demostration.

Remember, these weapons are designed to hit targets up to a light-second
away, at relative velocities measuring thousands of km/sec!  Tagging a few
hundred grav tanks from low orbit will be easy.

>> However I would agree that in interface work fighters would be in their
>> element. If your going to meet fighters anywhere it will be here.

They would be most useful over the FEBA (Forward Edge of the Battle Area,
where the forces were intermingled.. by being down in the dirt, the
interface fighters could pick off "sprinting" grav vehicles and attack
suspected headquarters.

However, the apperance of fighters tends to make everybody in range empty
their weapons skyward.. and you never know when you'll be hit by a
one-in-a-million shot.

>> Carrying a weapon is very different from being able to target with it.
>> The biggest weapon in the world is of little use if you can't hit with it.
>> In space combat the velocity are going to so great that you're going to
>> have very short engagement times. Therefore you are going to need some
>> very effective targeting and control; and there will be a minimum size craft
>> required to mount it.
>
>Okay, lets assume that the weapon is a smart device, has inbuilt
>targeting. Maybe its so smart that it homes in on transponder signals.  No
need for
>excessively complicated targeting on the fighter itself, just on the
>weapon.  What do you think of that?

Then why not fire this weapon from a nice, heavily armored bay on a BB or
cruiser?

BTW:  Transponders do have an OFF switch.

>> A battleship (100,000Td+) could quite concievably handle several hundred
>> missile attacks and probably absorb quite a few that get through. Plus
>> battleships wouldn't operate individually, they'd operate as part of an
>> intergrated task group with significant small escorts, greatly increasing
>> their survivability.
>
>Yes of course, but the orginal poster used 1 battlerider vs an equal
>tonnage of fighters, which i think is wrong (and i stated so) but i
>remained within the confines of the argument.

But you never factored the cost of the carrier... those fighter have to come
from somewhere.

>> Most certainly not, especially for pilots! Hardware is expendable, lives
>> are not. Pilots are always an elite, you can't throw them away, if only
>> for the morale considerations. Remember in space the recovery rate for
>> pilots who's fighters are lost is going to be close to nil.
>
>Of course it is a waste, let me qualify.  Im speaking within the confines
>of the argument.  Losing a hundred pilots (excessive, but usefull for
>illustration) is pitful compared to the destruction (and loss of life
>thereof) a battlerider.

It takes six weeks to train a Navy gunner.  It takes six years to produce a
fighter pilot.

>Also, pilot scarceness is culturally linked as well as resource linked.
>Germany in wwII had no real problem in finding pilots, nor did japan (they
>sacrificed hundreds by the end of the war).  The soviet union and the USA
>also didnt have extensive problems with pilot acquisition, while England
>did. 

Huh?  The Luftwaffe was critically short of pilots from 1943 on.. after
about September '44, the skies belonged to the allies, because the few
remaining pilots were on bomber intercept duty.  The Japanese had to take
untrained cadets and strap them to flying bombs since they had run out of
instructors to teach dogfighting.  Most of the Kamikaze were making their
first solo pilots!  The Soviets would accept almost anyone for pilot
training, and since it meant getting away from the German Panzers, they
never ran short of volunteers.  Since the availible pilot pool was much
larger than the supply of aircraft, it left the impression of a larger air
force, but look at the actual number of planes flown... less than 1500
throught out the war.

The pilot shortage in the US was so desperate that the US Army Air Corps was
forced to allow African-Americans the chance to fly.  One black unit, the
99th Pursuit Squadron (The Tuskegee Airmen), became one of the most
decorated AC units in the war.

>> The hstorical reason for the supremacy of the carrier is very simple, it
>> can be summed up in one word: Range. A battleship is capable of absorbing
>> far more damage than a carrier, can carry far better defences and can
>> fight in conditions which will leave a carrier floundering. The only
>> advantage the carrier has is range. A battleship can engage targets maybe
>> 40Km away, a carrier 400Km away. In space this advantage is much less.
>> Plus much of the aircrafts advantages depend on recoving a significant
>> number of lost crews, which isn't going to happen in space.
>
>True.  So perhaps we should remould the argument.  Im willing to concede
>that carrier based massed fighters maybe redundent, but what about planet
>based or mixed arm battleships (battleship carries a small squadron of
>planes)?

The space on a BB is better spent on weaponry.  Planetary squadrons make
some sense, in that they could at least act as pickets.

>> A big ship can put its critical systems at its core. Making them all but
>> impossible to hit. You will be able to hurt a ship by hitting its vulnerable
>> surface systems, but your unlikely to kill it. What you can do however is
>> soften it up for an easy kill by a bigger ship.
>
>True, but its more convenient to place sensors and the bridge in usually
>susceptable places.  Also, the spinal mount can be susceptable to attack
>as well as the engines.  The destruction of anyone of these things will
>badly affect the battleships combat ability.

If you live to get close enough!

A crude example.  I'm a trained sniper, I can hit a man-sized target out to
about 800m.  I'm sitting with my trusty M-21 in the middle of a large, flat
area.  You, and 40 friends, are armed with .50 Desert Eagles, range about
40m.  If those suckers hit me, I'm dead, but I'm wearing a flack suit, so
you'll have to get close enogh to hit an unprotected portion of my body.

Your group starts 1km from me.  I'll probably notice you right off, since
there is nothing to hide behind.  At 800m, I start shooting.  At that range,
I might pick off one or two of you.  As you move closer, my accuracy gets
better.  Withing 100m, I *will not* miss, and unless enough of you remain to
completely overwhelm me, I will kill you. 

See where this is going?  It'd be much better for y'all to use a .50cal
machinegun, which can penetrate my armor, and hit me at longer range,
without endanger yourself.

>> The fighter/ship analogy is not a good one, a far better one is FAC/ship.
>> space fighters don't have the massive speed advantage. Throw 100+ Osa II
>> against a Iowa plus escorts and the Iowa wins. Space fighters won't be able
>> to do the hit and run that modern aircraft rely on against ships.
>
>So, the assumption (which may well be right - i havnt played traveller in
>years, and never played the current version) is that Battleships, in the
>main, no matter what size, will have 6g acceleration?

Personnaly, I design with about 3g.

>So, no fleet in the known universe can outrun an equal tech fleet?  You
>can never have a manevreability advantage over another vessel?  It doesnt
>cost excessively much to equip a cruiser or higher vessel with 6g manvr.
>engines?

*Sigh*  It's all relative motion.

Right now, the Earth is revolving at about 900mph.  If I run east at 8mph,
does this mean that I'm running at 892mph?  No, because relative to the
Earth, I'm only doing 8mph.  The same thing in car crashes.. If two vehicles
hit head on and 50mph each, the damge is going to be consitent with a 100mph
collision.

If my Battleship (3g accel) has be boosting to a speed of 90,000kmh, and
your fighter (6g accel) is boosting on a parrael course at 30,000kmh, to the
fighter it will appear that battleships is pulling away at 60,000kph.  A
fighter traveling straight towards the battleship at 90k/kph, will see the
battleship flash by at 180k/kph.  Speed is simply a function of acceleration
over time.  I could build a .0001g drive, and if I had enough fuel, take it
up to a healthy fraction of c.

>Now, im sorry, but if thats how traveller is now, i think thats wrong.
>Also, if thats the case, why would you build anyship at all without 6g
>acceleration?  Why would there be a slow boat and a pinnance? why doesnt
>every ships in the starship manual have 6g acceleration?  Its not
>consistent with the arguments presented here.

Do you drive a top-fuel dragster?  We can build and run IC-engine ground
cars that can drive at 300mph+, but those are specialized applications.  The
two small craft you mention are not intended to be warships, they are
designed as passenger/frieght haulers.  By installing less poerful drives,
they save space for the hold.

Most military ships will have high G ratings, simply because there comes a
time when running is the best option.

>> Historical examples of surface ships vs carrier where the surface forces
>> won:
>> Scharnhorst and Gneisenau against Glorious
>> Japanese against the TF77 at Samar
>> 
>> Historically carriers lived in dread of being engaged by surface forces,
>> that's one of the main reasons why their escorts where heavy with cruisers
>> and battleships. The mere mention of a surface task force nearby was
>> enough to make even the most bull headed carrier commander (Halsey springs
>> to mind) pack up and run. When carriers are engaged by surface forces, the
>> carrier losses. Carriers rely almost entirely on their ability to engage
>> the enemy before they can be engaged.
>
>Which is the exact point i was making when i mentioned the carrier vs
>surface ship.  Of course a HS vs CV would win, but thats an unrealistic
>comparison in the sense that you have deprived the CV of its "air" power.

Changing horses mid-stream..  Being familar with both battles referenced, I
can safely say that in neither case were the carriers denied their air
wings, in fact in the Glorious' case, the pilots fought deperately.

>> "Be there firstest with the mostest" (I can't remember who said that, but
>> it does pretty much sum up warfare).
>
>Probably an american :)

Nathan Bedford Forrest, and the orignal quote was: "Be there first, with the
most men."  How it got corrupted into that thing is a mystery.

>> Yes, but battleships would carry comparitevly few big guns, most of their
>> weaponry would be smaller weapons to keep fighters and other smaller ships
>> at bay. The big guns would be truely impressive, but they would have a
>> very respectable secondary armarment.
>
>Which, again i will concede.  I was seperating a HS weapons as they are
>today, and have been for many years - Big Guns used for shore bombardment
>and capital vs capital combat and PD weapons used for anti air warfare.
>
>Also, if i remember corecctly the High Guard rules had a limit on the
>number of turrets that a vessel could have, is this still true?  If so,
>then fighters could outgun Battleships in equal tonnange/cost (?)

Weapon mounts are only limited by surface area and power.. nothing else.

>if you are not ready to die then you are not ready to live.

Aside: I love it when presumably healthy people make pithy statements about
death...

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   clown outfits.       -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 18:25:25 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Space combat at the strategic or grand tactical level

At 09:16 PM 4/7/97 +1000, you wrote:

>"Look i wonder why the German Panzer army is massing on the french border"

This was asked in 1939, and the obvious answer was: "They're going to invade
right through the Maginot Line."

Quite a shock when the blitz came through the Low countries...

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   clown outfits.       -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 22:00:38 +0000 (GMT)
From: Larry Hadley <lhadley@knet.flemingc.on.ca>
Subject: Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters

On Mon, 7 Apr 1997 MrkGrismer@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 4/5/97 3:23:10 AM, Merrik wrote:
> 
> <<*blink*  missiles have infinite range.  I let them coast towards
> your fleet from a distance, and when they get within a single turn's
> burn of a target, BOOM.>>
> 
> However there is a time factor with missiles. It takes time for them to coast
> toward the enemy fleet. A fleet that may not be there when the missile would
> get to a single turns burn. Missiles carried by "fighters" can have their
> courses corrected, so to speak. 

  There's also the concern of powering the targetting systems (whether
they be independant or semi-independant) as any person who's designed
missiles using FF&S has already figured out...unless you put a fusion
powerplantor some other source of power (such as solar cells) the missile
must have enough batteries to power the guidance package for the intended
duration. (In case you've been wondering, I've done a lot of thinking on
this subject; mainly on the possibility of using missiles as mines)

- -- DLH                                      lhadley@knet.flemingc.on.ca
   Traveller stuff for sale/trade.
   http://www.knet.flemingc.on.ca/~lhadley/Profile.html

  "Fight to fly, fly to fight, fight to win." - TOPGUN motto.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 02:14:02 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Honest Review of Emperor's Arsenal (long)

Somebody pour a bucket of ice water over this guy.

Sounds like Ken's been "born again" :)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 22:00:57 -0400
From: Mark Urbin <eclipse@ultranet.com>
Subject: Emperor's Arsenal

I like this one.  It has a good beat and I could...whoops...wrong media. :-o
Emperor's Arsenal has a good Classic Traveller field to it.  I was reminded
of the Ironmongery section of Book 4.  The interior art is very nice, and
very Traveller.  The illustration for the ARC-5 stuck out as good example.

It does have many of your old friends, gauss rifles, personal laser
weapons, and snub pistols (didja know the cP003 is TL B Snub Pistol?  There
is even a SMG version of it.


- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
eclipse@ultranet.com -- These opinions are mine, no one else wants `em.
http://www.ultranet.com/~eclipse/  -- Politics should be limited in scope 
to war, protection of property, and the occasional precautionary 
beheading of a member of the ruling class."  -- P.J. O'Rourke 
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 02:14:01 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Fighters as defensive batteries.

On Mon, 7 Apr 1997 14:01:29 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:

> I had a thought a while back concerning fighters. In reference to the =
rule
> on grouping fighters as a battery, ie all similar weapons and similar
> agility (and probably speed). If you tie the "battery" to a platform to=
 be
> screened, then it is logical that the fighters could be used as =
defensive
> batteries against incoming missiles. With advanced computer guidance =
and
> fast firing weapons, this "floating battery" could add significantly to=
 a
> ships chance of survival and be transfered to another platform when
> needed, or even screen an entire fleet if they were along or near the
> approach vector of the incoming missiles. This is the tactic the U. S.
> Navy uses with the F - 14 and the Phoenix missile, although it first
> attempts to shoot the bombers before they can launch their warheads.

I never thought of using fighters as a single battery before and it
*does* make sense!  As long as there isn't any solar flare activity or
powerful jamming going on, it should work OK.  There would be limits
to the size of the battery, of course, but fighters *could* increase
their value to a fleet using this rule.

As for someone else's comments of adding up the surface area of the
sensors on multiple fighters to form one large array, this also makes
sense.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 02:13:59 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Fighters - what ranges???

On Mon, 07 Apr 1997 12:51:21 -0400, you wrote:

> At 09:25 PM 4/4/97 GMT, James Lindsay wrote:
>=20
> >Today's fighters can engage air targets at ranges of no more than
> >100km (or so), while engaging surface targets at roughly half that
> >distance. =20
>=20
> Eek.  Well, let's at least use good numbers here.  Jane's supplies some
> nice info:
>=20
> air-to-air missiles max range:              150km
> air-to-surface missiles max range:          650km
> air-to-surface cruise missiles max range:  3000km

It appears my maximum AAM range was off due to the conversion between
imperial and metric... the figure I saw must have been in miles.

Would you mind sharing the type of ordnance for your second example?
I did explicitly state "fighters" and not something that came out of
the belly of a B-52 :)

> But given the lack of air resistance, what's the max range of Traveller
> missiles? =20

Infinite... as long as they have sufficient fuel to make the necessary
course corrections when targeting an evading target.  Target
acquisition would most likely have to take place within *someone's*
maximum sensor range, of course.

> >BTW, the new F23 is approximately 66 feet long if memory serves,
> >comparable to a Traveller 10t fighter.
>=20
> Umm, the F23 was a prototype.  And one that was not chosen.  The F22 =
what
> your were looking for?

I guess I should learn to type with something other than my forehead
:P

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 02:14:04 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Fighters (as missile launchers)

On Mon, 07 Apr 1997 12:12:54 -0700, you wrote:

> End result both sides have likely lost both of their destroyers. Even
> battle, well not really. You see the carrier while waiting for it's =
little
> babies to return whistles another task force of say three heavy =
cruisers. On
> the other hand the battleship is sitting there with a general idea that
> there is a carrier out that away somewhere.

You started your scenario with two more-or-less equally balanced task
forces, and after the loss of both fleets' DDs, you admit that it is
still a draw.  But then you disbalance things by reinforcing the CV
fleet with three CAs... your whole example then shows the threat of
becoming heavily lop-sided.

Upon the two fleets' DDs spotting each other, I would imagine that not
only would the BB accelerate to meet its DD screen, but that the DDs
would attempt to fall back somewhat to gain the protection of the BB
and delay the arrival of the fighters.  Doing so would draw the
fighters in a bit closer, allowing the DDs to relay to the BB a decent
bearing to the enemy CV (a good tactician could even gauge to range).

Ignoring the additional CAs from the scenario, the BB could then steam
on ahead with a good idea where the enemy CV is located.  We now have
a potential battle between a BB and a CV in the midst of retrieving
and rearming her fighters.

More likely however, the BB might decide to wait and call in three CAs
of its own to fill in as pickets for its lost DDs.  The battle at this
point would be a draw.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 23:37:18 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Subject: Fighters revisted

On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Scott Ellsworth wrote:

> >On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Andrew Vallance wrote:
> >>...They
> >> just don't have the size to mount the sensors of a big ship and their
> >> crews aren't large enough for any slack.
> >
> >They dont need the sensors of a big ship.
> 
> They need one good enough to target at range.  If they use energy weapons
> at all, then they will need to see what they are shooting at.

I wouldnt have them depend on energy weapons, as they wouldnt be as
effective as missiles.  Laser would be more for dogfights.

> If, OTOH, you assume missiles, then the missiles get very expensive, and it
> becomes important to ask whether a fighter is the best platform to deliver
> the expensive missiles.

True, but the loss of the fighter (as a delivery platform) as opposed to a
cruiser also has to be considered.

> 
> Then the weapon needs that equipment, and you get the minimum size argument
> again.

We have similiar targeting systems today, they dont add a significant
amount to the weapons size, and your saying that by the 50th century
(earth time) they wouldnt have miniturised to the  point of insignificance
(weight related)?

> 
> >> A battleship (100,000Td+) could quite concievably handle several hundred
> >> missile attacks and probably absorb quite a few that get through.
> 
> >Yes of course, but the orginal poster used 1 battlerider vs an equal
> >tonnage of fighters, which i think is wrong (and i stated so) but i
> >remained within the confines of the argument.
> 
> In fact, given the high cost of the computing equipment and sensor
> packages, fighters cost _more_ per ton than a battleship.  They are handy,
> though, in that you can buy just one or two fighters for a system's gas
> giant.  If it comes to a standing fight, fighters are not competitive in cost.
> 

This may be so, but it was beyond the scope of the initail argument
battlerider vs equal tonnage of fighters.

> 
> >Of course it is a waste, let me qualify.  Im speaking within the confines
> >of the argument.  Losing a hundred pilots (excessive, but usefull for
> >illustration) is pitful compared to the destruction (and loss of life
> >thereof) a battlerider.
> 
> But the Battle rider that a hundred pilots and fighters are going to be
> able to kill is cheaper and has a smaller crew than the hundred fighters.

No once again you didnt read the argument, we used a predefined
battlerider with a predefined fighter class (1 man fighter).  So this
point is not relevant either.

> 
> >Also, pilot scarceness is culturally linked as well as resource linked.
> 
> True.  It still costs a lot of time to create the crew, if you want them to
> be competent enough to be worth using in a very expensive small craft.
> 

During world war II the british could produce about 100 competent pilots
or so every two months, and they had scarce manpower.  Germans could do
even better.

> ...
> >Im assuming that the opposing powers are of equal resource strength (large
> >empires perhaps?) and wouldnt have a great problem with training new
> >pilots - which still doesnt justfy wasting them though.
> 
> The first half perhaps, but not the second.  It always costs to train new
> crew, and you always must use them in a way that maximizes their
> effectiveness.
> 

This si true, but there not a scarce resource.  Highly
skilled/trained/experienced onses are but thats true in any field.

> No.  Don't be disingenuous.

I can dis all i like, thanks very much.

> 
> What people have bee trying to say is that the acceleration of ships in
> Traveller is pretty darn close, as they only differ usually by a 10-15% at
> a given tech level.

And what ive been trying to say is that, if accelration is the only
measure of agility/manvr. its simplistic.  I have also been trying to say
that if you have a system where it doesnt cost much more (or even
cheaper!) to build a highly manvr. 100,000t battleship as opposed to a 10t
fighter, thats also to simplistic, nay, perhaps ludicrous?

WHich is fine, i dont mind because traveller can easily be modified and
its a role-playing game not a wargame.

> >Now, im sorry, but if thats how traveller is now, i think thats wrong.
> >Also, if thats the case, why would you build anyship at all without 6g
> >acceleration?
> 
> You are not listening, I suspect.  Fighters are not intrinsically faster
> under the assumptions of the universe; you can build anything with high
> accel.  You may choose not to.  As a result, if combat ships need to move
> quickly, then they will be built with that acceleration.

I am listening, reread what i said.  If thats the way it is, thats fine,
but, to then assert that it will cost (comparatively) as much to build a
battleship as fast/manvr/ and accelrates as a small 1 man fighter, than
thats a little odd.

> >> Carriers rely almost entirely on their ability to engage
> >> the enemy before they can be engaged.
> >
> >Which is the exact point i was making when i mentioned the carrier vs
> >surface ship.  Of course a HS vs CV would win, but thats an unrealistic
> >comparison in the sense that you have deprived the CV of its "air" power.
> 
> Except that there is no air power in traveller.  None.
> 
> It is not unrealistic; it is a corollary of the technology.  If you do not
> like it, propose new technology.

SCOTT!  READ IT ALL!  We were at that point speaking about carriers and
battleships in the real world, thats why i use the symbol for Carrier
Vehicle CV.  Were not talking about space at that point.

Man, read, and comprehend.

> "When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
> results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))

Very insightful :->

PaChi,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


He who increases knowledge, increases sorrow
Solomon

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 23:39:32 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Fighters - Revisted II

On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, James Lindsay wrote:

I understand your point.  

> On Tue, 8 Apr 1997 02:11:25 +1000 (EST), you wrote:
> 
> > If i have one car which can do 0-100km in 6 seconds, and another that can
> > do 0-100km in 10 seconds, but both have  atop speed of 250km/hour then car
> > A is tha faster car.  The reason it is faster is because of the way the
> > engine is built (and of course other factors, but the engine is primary),
> > which is what i was getting at, vaguely admitedly (well, not to me:), but
> > the same thing.
> 
> No.  Car "A" is the quicker car, but they are both equally "fast".
> 
> Both cars could very well have the exact same engine-- let's say that
> they are both 350 Chev engines producing 250 hp.  250 hp will provide
> enough power to allow the car to continue to accelerate until the
> amount of drag on the body reaches a certain point.  At the moment
> this happens, that 250 hp is exactly enough to offset that drag, as
> well as any internal friction of the drivetrain.
> 
> One engine could be built differently to produce more horsepower,
> allowing it to accelerate further past this point until the drag
> prevented it from accelerating any further.  The shape of the body of
> the car can also reduce drag, allowing greater acceleration and top
> speed.  Finally, the transmissions of the two cars could be geared
> differently (which is actually the main contributor to top speed
> limitations).
> 
> The point that I am trying to make is that cars and trucks have all of
> these limitations (they are all forms of friction); a spacecraft
> operating in a vacuum does not.  While interstellar dust and micro
> meteorites might produce some drag, it wouldn't be noticeable until
> you reach VERY, very high speeds.
> 


PaChi,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


He who increases knowledge, increases sorrow
Solomon

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 02:13:49 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: My final view on fighters in Traveller [LONG]

The course of this thread has drifted quite a bit over the last two
weeks as new ideas seem to crop up with each posting, making it harder
and harder to discuss all aspects in relation to each other.  This
will (probably) be my final posting regarding the validity of fighters
in the current Traveller universe, so I have lumped my opinions into
one large posting (it gets a bit tiring trying to track a debate
through a dozen or so different post headings :)


=46ighters and "Hard Science"
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D

After the release of T:NE it appeared that those responsible for the
latest incarnation of the Traveller rules were trying pretty hard to
base as much of the Traveller science on modern facts and theories as
they could (I can't comment on MegaTraveller, since I do not own the
actual rules).  The T:NE "Fire, Fusion & Steel" technical sourcebook
probably did more to emphisize "hard science" in the Traveller
universe than any other book prior (or since).  No expense was spared
at attempting to explain as much about the Traveller universe as
possible using what we know NOW in the late 20th century.  Some
hand-waving was necessary (gravitics, jump drives, T-plates, meson
guns, and the like) to follow earlier canon, but attempts at
explaining these technologies appeared realistic enough to satisfy
most "gearheads".  In short, FF&S is based on as much scientific fact
as GDW could squeeze into 160 pages.

=46F&S is still probably the most widely used set of rules used to build
spacecraft for the Traveller universe (note that the various ship
construction rules for T4 have been designed as to be backwards
compatible with FF&S).  Since its many formulae and charts are based
on some scientific fact, it is somewhat difficult to argue the final
results of anything built using these rules-- and this includes
building fighters capable of taking on big capital ships.

The effectiveness of laser and target acquisition technology have
already been discussed in depth, as has the fact that big ships can
carry better sensors and lasers than fighters (size and power being
the main issues).  And regardless of how powerful a missile's warhead
might be, the problem still involves getting it to survive long enough
to get within its own effective range.

You *could* also hand-wave some sort of powerful direct-fire fighter
weaponry (throwing the "hard science" feel of Traveller out the
window) but you would have to make them short ranged-- otherwise the
big ships would use them too.

Much of the fighters vs. capital ships argument has been hashed out
before on the beta list, with many knowledgable participants.  As
Merrick mentioned in one post a few days ago, current technology (and
the physics which governs it) was found to be far more effective at
generating kill results on small targets such as missiles and fighters
than anyone on the list had previously thought.

Lasers capable of firing 800 shots over a 30-minute game turn (which
_can_ be built with FF&S) have been mathematically proven to be
extremely lethal to nearly anything inside 30,000km.  While the
survivability of targets beyond this range increases, the problem is
that all missiles (even nuclear-pumped X-ray laser warheads) *must*
close to well within 30,000km to affect the target.  Such warheads are
moving directly at the target and are easy pickings for such a laser,
which would have a considerable amount of time to do so (especially
regarding those that must close to a much shorter distance).

If a laser can do this to a swarm of missiles, it stands a good chance
of doing the same to a swarm of far more expensive fighters.  The only
advantage for fighters here that I can really see is the ability to
launch more missiles at once.  The question then becomes a matter of
comparing which of the following is more cost efficient:

1) outfit a vessel with "X" missile turrets & missile bays

   ...or...

2) using the same space and surface area required for step #1,
   provide room for "Y" fighters (and their hangers), as well as
   the space for a couple of launch tubes

Option #1 allows massive missile volleys to be fired on nearly every
Combat Round while Option #2 would allow an even larger missile volley
once every couple of game-hours or so (assuming that the fighters
launch _all_ their missiles at once).  I think Option #1 is probably
the most efficient, although Option #2 would be better off when
dealing with foes with REALLY impressive anti-missile defenses.


Making Fair Comparisons (part I)
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Traveller space combat cannot be compared to modern-day aerial or
naval combat, since all three operate in different mediums.  A vacuum
offers no drag, which allows for much higher velocities but also
prevents the medium from interacting with the craft for purposes of
maneuvering.  Translation: the Traveller rules pretty much can allow
both small fighters and large capital ships to be built with similar
maneuver and agility ratings, so any advantage a modern fighter has
over a naval target is stripped away.

Air and water provide drag (limiting maximum speed, depending on the
medium) but also provide the necessary counter-force for maneuvering
and acceleration.  This difference in speed and maneuverability is why
it is ridiculous to even compare aircraft vs. naval power (let alone
space combat)... they are just too dissimilar to compare fairly.  We
could try to go one step further and compare your average infantry
company to an A-10, but you can see where this is going :)


Making Fair Comparisons (part II)
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

If you truly want to compare two subjects, they must be done in a
controlled environment.  This is basic scientific protocol, and would
apply to any military testing as well.  To determine the effectiveness
of using fighters vs. using larger capital ships to prove a point, a
government would demand tests based on their biggest concern: cost.

Eliminating all factors similar to both sides (escort screens, support
ships, tenders, repair facilities, drydocks, starports. etc.), all you
are left with is the comparison between a 1GCr jump-capable battleship
and a jump-capable carrier & its complement of fighters (total cost:
1GCr).  Since all other factors would remain the same, the question
would boil down to "which is the better 'bang' for the 'buck'".  The
inclusion of a carrier (or starport) in the comparison is *essential*
in any such evaluation; leaving it out would be the same as denying
the battleship its jump drives, missile & fuel reloads, damage
control, frozen watch, crew quarters, long-term life support, etc.
(besides, the fighters have to move around from system to system
*somehow*).

Then, and only then, could you determine how effective fighters would
be against large ships of various size.  It might be determined, for
example, that a small pocket carrier and her fighters would perform
better than a small cruiser of the same cost, while proving inadequate
vs. a larger vessel (a larger carrier with more fighters would have to
be used for the latter comparison, of course).


Closing Statements
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

=46ighters still have a role in tackling less dangerous targets, and
because of this, the enemy will probably be using fighters, too (these
enemy fighters could also be engaged).  Fighters also work well for
anti-piracy functions, being cheaper to operate than a larger vessel.
=46inally, they are nearly infinitely flexible, meaning that 500
fighters could easily be divided up into smaller groups, depending on
the needs of the situation (where a big ship simply *can't* be sent to
two or more places at once).

One of the problems with a "hard science" RPG like traveller is that
true technology is often far scarier than you would tend to believe.
"The truth may be out there", but you might not like what you find :)

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1155
***********************************
Traveller-digest       Tuesday, April 8 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1156



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Fighters revisted
Re: Space combat at the strategic or grand tactical level
Emperor's Arsenal
Rating the T4 products thus far (long)
Re: 4Sale: Signal-GK 12
Re: TLs of Imperiums I, II and III
Re: Vegans
Re: Honest Review of Emperor's Arsenal (long)
Re: Fighters (as missile launchers)
Re: Info needed!
Character generation question (T4)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 23:58:08 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Fighters revisted

On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Douglas E. Berry wrote:

> >Yes of course, but the orginal poster used 1 battlerider vs an equal
> >tonnage of fighters, which i think is wrong (and i stated so) but i
> >remained within the confines of the argument.
> 
> But you never factored the cost of the carrier... those fighter have to come
> from somewhere.

I assumed they were planetbased, since he ignored carrier requirements
(for simplicity i suppose)  Remember, i was working within the confines of
his example, i didnt make the example up.

> >Of course it is a waste, let me qualify.  Im speaking within the confines
> >of the argument.  Losing a hundred pilots (excessive, but usefull for
> >illustration) is pitful compared to the destruction (and loss of life
> >thereof) a battlerider.
> 
> It takes six weeks to train a Navy gunner.  It takes six years to produce a
> fighter pilot.

Thats when you have time to spare, in a major war 6 years is not the time
it takes, not at all.  The major powers of ww2 turned out pilots over 
about 2-4 month period.

> Huh?  The Luftwaffe was critically short of pilots from 1943 on.. after
> about September '44, the skies belonged to the allies, because the few
> remaining pilots were on bomber intercept duty.  The Japanese had to take
> untrained cadets and strap them to flying bombs since they had run out of
> instructors to teach dogfighting.  Most of the Kamikaze were making their
> first solo pilots!  The Soviets would accept almost anyone for pilot
> training, and since it meant getting away from the German Panzers, they
> never ran short of volunteers.  Since the availible pilot pool was much
> larger than the supply of aircraft, it left the impression of a larger air
> force, but look at the actual number of planes flown... less than 1500
> throught out the war.

But the point is they had pilots, it was all relative, but they had
pilots.  I never said they would be crack veteran crews.

> >True.  So perhaps we should remould the argument.  Im willing to concede
> >that carrier based massed fighters maybe redundent, but what about planet
> >based or mixed arm battleships (battleship carries a small squadron of
> >planes)?
> 
> The space on a BB is better spent on weaponry.  Planetary squadrons make
> some sense, in that they could at least act as pickets.
> 
> >> A big ship can put its critical systems at its core. Making them all but
> >> impossible to hit. You will be able to hurt a ship by hitting its vulnerable
> >> surface systems, but your unlikely to kill it. What you can do however is
> >> soften it up for an easy kill by a bigger ship.
> >
> >True, but its more convenient to place sensors and the bridge in usually
> >susceptable places.  Also, the spinal mount can be susceptable to attack
> >as well as the engines.  The destruction of anyone of these things will
> >badly affect the battleships combat ability.
> 
> If you live to get close enough!
> 
> A crude example.  I'm a trained sniper, I can hit a man-sized target out to
> about 800m.  I'm sitting with my trusty M-21 in the middle of a large, flat
> area.  You, and 40 friends, are armed with .50 Desert Eagles, range about
> 40m.  If those suckers hit me, I'm dead, but I'm wearing a flack suit, so
> you'll have to get close enogh to hit an unprotected portion of my body.
> 
> Your group starts 1km from me.  I'll probably notice you right off, since
> there is nothing to hide behind.  At 800m, I start shooting.  At that range,
> I might pick off one or two of you.  As you move closer, my accuracy gets
> better.  Withing 100m, I *will not* miss, and unless enough of you remain to
> completely overwhelm me, I will kill you. 
> 
> See where this is going?  It'd be much better for y'all to use a .50cal
> machinegun, which can penetrate my armor, and hit me at longer range,
> without endanger yourself.

AGreed, as i said, im willing to concede that fighters in traveller dont
have th advantage that they do traditionally.  

> >Which is the exact point i was making when i mentioned the carrier vs
> >surface ship.  Of course a HS vs CV would win, but thats an unrealistic
> >comparison in the sense that you have deprived the CV of its "air" power.
> 
> Changing horses mid-stream..  Being familar with both battles referenced, I
> can safely say that in neither case were the carriers denied their air
> wings, in fact in the Glorious' case, the pilots fought deperately.

Im not familiar, but i would have to guess that the battleships came in
within there gunning range, which is a death sentence to a lightly
escorted or unescorted carrier.  Doing this defeats the purpose of the
carrier.  If i was the captain of the Missouri and i knew i was going in
against the Enterprise, whos location i dont know, id be worried.  Of
course im sure someone will say they'd rather be in the Missouri, but
thats life:)

> 
> Nathan Bedford Forrest, and the orignal quote was: "Be there first, with the
> most men."  How it got corrupted into that thing is a mystery.

Which is an axiom threw all ages of war.

> >if you are not ready to die then you are not ready to live.
> 
> Aside: I love it when presumably healthy people make pithy statements about
> death...

Never assume.  Your assuming that death is related to health, which is not
the case in this quote oh Duchovny Sniper.



PaChi,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


He who increases knowledge, increases sorrow
Solomon

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 00:28:29 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Space combat at the strategic or grand tactical level

On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Douglas E. Berry wrote:

> At 09:16 PM 4/7/97 +1000, you wrote:
> 
> >"Look i wonder why the German Panzer army is massing on the french border"
> 
> This was asked in 1939, and the obvious answer was: "They're going to invade
> right through the Maginot Line."
> 
> Quite a shock when the blitz came through the Low countries...

Did you know that Hitler ordered them not to continue after there initial
assault.


PaChi,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


Never put passion before principle, even if u win, u lose.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 23:06:28 -0400
From: Mark Urbin <eclipse@ultranet.com>
Subject: Emperor's Arsenal

A copy of nice bits about this book,

The burstfire (aimed) rules on page 9.

Also on that page, the 'sideblast' rules for plasma weapons.

CLAYMORES!  The rules are in the beginning, an example (Mine,
Scattermine-7) can be found on page 48.  It's only 1.6Kg.  Easy to mount to
the chest plate of the ABD-11 listed on page 77. :-)


- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
eclipse@ultranet.com -- These opinions are mine, no one else wants `em.
http://www.ultranet.com/~eclipse/  -- Politics should be limited in scope 
to war, protection of property, and the occasional precautionary 
beheading of a member of the ruling class."  -- P.J. O'Rourke 
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 21:43:58 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Rating the T4 products thus far (long)

This is a list of the T4 products produced thus far, and for those 
who don't have them yet, I'll rate what I thought of each release 
below.

I've spent a total of $165 on T4 products thus far, and here's what I 
think about them.

Rating system:		5	=	One of the best Traveller products ever made.
				4	=	Very good product.  Don't miss it.
				3	=	Good product.  For those interested in its topic, it's a good 
						buy.	
				2	=	Fair product.  It's hard to get excited about it, but it may 
						add something to some campaigns.				
				1	=	Poor product.  Pure Crapola.  Don't buy it unless you really, 
						really want it and know what you are getting into.
				0	=	This is one of the worst products ever produced for 
						Traveller.



Book 1:  T4 Main Book		RATING  3
Cost  $30.00;  190 pages.

The T4 main book borders on a rating of 2.  There's a lot wrong with 
it.  Since I recognize that there is a lot of good in it too, I give 
it a middle of the road rating of 3.

What's Good?  
It has a detailed contents and index, reflects that 
good old Traveller feel in many areas, modernizes the Classic 
Traveller rules in many areas, and has a good and logical set of 
skills.  

There's a good listing of basic equipment, both new to the 
game and old, in the book.  Likewise, there's a decent amount of 
vehicles that you would expect in a basic game. 

Much of the book is taken directly from previous CT Traveller rules, 
word for word.  There are places, though, where they did not convert 
to the lower-is-better standard for rolling very well.  



What's Bad?  
Character Gen tries to be good, but ends up screwy with 
problems--notably the EDU problem.  Typos run rampant throughout the 
book.  The art runs from pretty good to down right awful.  Although 
the task system is the best design I've ever seen for Traveller, it 
uses awkward half dice and has probability problems with Staggering 
and Impossible tasks.  Of course, this is easily fixed, and my own 
KBv2.0 task system keeps the general feel and great design of the 
task system and fixes the problems all at the same time.  In my 
opinion, a fixed T4 task system, like KBv2.0, is one of the best I've 
seen for a role playing game--certaininly the best that Traveller has 
ever seen (even better than the very good system in MT).

The space combat system is confusing and unusable--use Mayday or wait 
for them to fix this.  In the Animal Encounter section, they forgot 
to tell you what target number an animal needs to attack.

And, the experience point system just sucks.  It uses some good 
ideas, but characters using this system will become super human in 
just a couple of adventures.  There has to be a system devised that 
makes it harder to increase your skills.

There's also the Core subsector listed in the book, but the stars are 
in the wrong place from where they were in the CT game.



What's OK?  
The combat system is OK.  It's simple and fast and still 
gets the job done.  It's a good basic system that can easily be 
added to later with more detailed rules.  I like more detail in my 
combat systems, but this is a good building block.  For those who 
like quick combat systems, they can use this basic one.  For people, 
like me, who don't like to be bogged down for an hour rolling a 
combat round, but want more detail in their combat, this system in 
the T4 book is a good place to start--then add more detail to later 
with other supplements (like the EA).

The spacecraft design rules are somewhat broken but playable.  It's a 
quick, basic system that leaves some questions unanswered.



In Sum--
I'd say go ahead and get it.  You kind of have to to run a T4 game.  
You might want to wait until the new revised edition comes out, but 
I'm starting to have reservations about this one as well.  There's a 
golden opportunity here to fix some of the things wrong with the T4 
main book, like the awkward, unwanted half die in the task system, 
but it seems that Marc and IG won't consider another system that 
fixes these problems.







BOOK 2:  Starships		RATING  1
Cost $22.50;  107 pages.

This book was a major dissapointment.  The only thing that it has to 
offer that is any good is the starship design system (which I 
understand is somewhat broken as well--you can get the corrected 
version on the net).

This system is a more detailed set of starship design rules.  Other 
than that, you get several pages of crappy art, minimal description, 
and some of the worst deck plans I have ever seen for any game.

I stopped in the game store today and looked at the Babylon 5 RPG 
called The Babylon Project.  In the back is a starting adventure, and 
they give some deck plans for ship used in the adventure.

IG should take a lesson from this.  These deck plans were incredible. 
 They were these 3 D deck plans taken at a three quarter point of 
view.  You could see all of the equipment, what the walls looked 
like, how high the ceiling was--everything.  There is no doubt about 
what the inside of that ship looked like.  I thought to myself that 
this would be great for Traveller.  A player asks what at room looks 
like, and you pull out these plans.  It would be just incredible.

Just so there is no mistake, here's what I'd like to see in T4 deck 
plans.  I like the 3 D concept.  I'd also like a detailed 2 D set so 
that the far side can be seen as well, and I want to know what the 
outside of the ship looks like.

The deck plans in DGP's Starship Operator's Manual were incredible 
(although not as good as the 3 D ones in the B5 main book), and I'd 
be completely happy with these.  I also liked the illustrations done 
in the SOP showing pertinent areas of the ship like bridge, 
engineering, a stateroom, etc.

My recommendation on Starships?  Don't get it unless you just want 
the starship design system.  Even so, you should download the 
corrected version of the system from the net.







BOOK 3:  Central Supply Catalog		RATING  4
Cost $22.50;  93 pages.

I really like the CSC.  The entries are written with a style that 
makes you believe that this equipment is real--not just the 
traditional bland equipment lists prevalent in old Traveller 
supplements.  It's got a good list of equipment (in fact, just about 
everything ever designed for Traveller in previous products--I went 
through all of my old stuff and checked!), a short robot design 
system, and a detailed vehicle design system.

I would have liked to see the equipment, especially the armor, taken 
to TL 16 like the EA has done, but even as it is, the CSC is a good 
buy.  I highly recommend it.







BOOK 4:  Aliens Archive			RATING  3
Cost $22.50;  106 pages.

The AA is a pretty good book.  If you want to add some diversity to 
the races you use in your campaign, then this is the book for you.  
This book holds details on 12 alien races including the Newts from 
CT.  It is done in the tradition of the old Contact articles in the 
old JTAS.  There's even a page with some real good art done for each 
alien.

Among some minor problems, there are two things that stand out as 
negatives to this book.  One is that all of the aliens are depicted 
without clothes, arms, or equipment.  Although there is a lot of info 
on each of the races, we don't really know what they look like.  It's 
like seeing a Vargr without any clothes.  You might assume they never 
wear them, which is definitely not true (the Vargr are notorious for 
their choice in clothing), like I do for all 12 of the aliens in the 
AA.  For instance, from an old JTAS article, I know that the Newts 
wear clothes, but in this book you would think that they are just 
humanoid, monster-like, lizards.  Although the drawings are good, I 
get the impression that these aliens would be better suited as D&D 
monsters than Traveller aliens.

Another thing that gets on my nerves is that there is not much 
differentation from humans in the sections that describe how to roll 
up the stats for each alien.  Aliens that look massive and are 
described as having massive strength roll 2 D6 for Str, just like 
humans do.  There should have been more care and thought put into the 
game mechanics in this book.

In sum, I do recommend the book if you want to populate your campaign 
alien, alien races.  You may even want to allow players to use one of 
these races as a PC--espeically if you are tired of everybody they 
play being one of the six major races.  It's a good change to play a 
minor race.







BOOK 5:  Milieu 0				RATING 3
Cost $22.50;  110 pages.

M0 is actually a good book, and I'd give it a 4 rating if I was 
playing in the M0 campaign.  I'm not, so I give it a 3 rating (I'm 
playing in the CT 1100's ear), but I still think that this book has a 
lot to offer any campaign.

The biggest asset this book has is its sheer volume of information 
packed between its pages.  Every topic imaginable is covered from the 
rise of the Third Imperium to the role of the various Imperial 
organizations to power structures for a M0 campaign.  There is a lot 
of info here.

The biggest liability to this book is that it has little actual game 
value.  You'll read this book one time (and this will greatly expand 
your M0 campaign background), but it is not the type of supplement 
that you keep going back to.  Read it once.  Digest the info, and 
that's it.

I recommend it if you are playing in M0.  It gives you a lot of 
background for your campaign, but it is not the type of background 
that you can use to make your sector of space that you are playing in 
more detailed.  It's history kind of info.  You'll know who is 
pulling the strings, what the general role of the Imperial Navy and 
Scouts are, and the procedures the Imperium uses to contact new 
worlds.

If you are not playing in M0, buying this book is a judgement call.  
I'm glad I bought it for my 1100's campaign, but I doubt that I'll 
use it directly.







BOOK 6:  First Survey			RATING 0
Cost $22.50;  109 pages.

This is one of those books that you will hardly ever use.  It is pure 
crapola.  All it is is a set of incomplete maps and world data.  On 
top of that, the world data is broken because the last two digits of 
every world's UPP (the government and law codes) are exactly the same 
on EVERY world listed in the book.  If a world has code 7 government, 
it has a code 7 law code.

So, all this product is is maps and world data.  The maps are 
incomplete--not showing starports, trade codes, and the other map 
details (basically, the maps tell you the world location, and that's 
it), so the maps are not useable.

Then, all of the world data is flawed--unusable because of the double 
digits in all of the UPP's.

Basically, First Survey is totally unusable and a waste of money.  It 
is definitely one of the worst supplements EVER produced for 
Traveller.

You know what my recommendation for this product is--stay as far away 
from it as possible and burn your friend's copy.

Marc Miller should be ashamed that his name is attached to it.







BOOK 7:  Emperor's Arsenal			RATIING  5
Cost $22.50;  110 pages.

On the heels of one of the worst Traveller products in Traveller 
history comes one of the BEST Traveller products in Traveller.

For a complete review, see my post from earlier today.  Basically, 
The EA is just incredible as a listing of Traveller small arms both 
old and new.  The only thing I could find wrong with it was those 
crappy Foss front and back cover pics, but the info...the info is 
fantastic.

I can't recommend this book enough.



If you have any specific questions about any of these Traveller 
products, then feel free to e-mail me in private.  I'd be happy to 
help you out in anyway I can.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 00:20:49 -0400
From: Bill Rutherford <worj@topgun.cinecom.com>
Subject: Re: 4Sale: Signal-GK 12

I want it!  Please advise as to how I can get it (i.e., where to send money
and do you take checks as well as MOs?)

Tx in advance!



At 09:02 PM 4/7/97 EST, you wrote:
>
>Hi - by a fluke, I have four extra copies of Signal-GK #12 (the latest
>issue). Signal-GK is a British pro-zine devoted to Traveller. This
>particular issue has 40 pages, plus two digest sized booklets for
>subsectors D & G (Iiradu & Khandi) of Dagudashaag Sector. As always, the
>articles and illo.'s are outstanding. I will sell them for $10.00 (US)
>which includes postage to the first four people who respond.
>
>Ad Astra,
>Paul Sanders
>
>P.S. I will also throw in deckplans for the "Swift" and "Lance" shuttle
>and fighter/interceptor.
>
>
>

- ---------------
Bill Rutherford
worj@topgun.cinecom.com

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 14:25:51 
From: dadams@tig.com.au
Subject: Re: TLs of Imperiums I, II and III

** Reply to note from Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu> Mon, 07 Apr 1997 10:44:34 -0700 
>    
> >Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 16:21:47 +0200 
> >From: "Mark Seemann" <mark@dk-online.dk> 
> >4/4-97 Scott Ellsworth wrote: 
> >> [canonical answer on tech level of Vilani and the ROM] 
> > 
> >According to Referee's Companion, p. 34: 
> >Vilani: 
> >- -5430  TL 11 
>    
> Could we please, then make very, very sure that _everyone_ writing 
> supplements for the Traveller world knows this well. 
>    
> I suspect many authors read the list, so please note - if you put a TL13+ 
> object in a RoM site, then you had best have a very good reason.  No TL14 
> vac suits, and no TL 14 plasma guns need apply. 
 
I personally like the TL14 space suit, as I believe that Terran material sciences would be far 
supior to the Vilani. Peferably I would use the Worldbuilder's Handbook staggered Tech level, 
as that was more realistic than the blanket TL that Traveller used. 
 
 

Darryl Adams		dadams@tig.com.au 
 

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 00:30:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: John H Bogan Jr <jbogan@pop.pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Vegans

At 08:33 PM 4/8/97 +1000, Solomani wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Anders Backman wrote:
>> For thos preferring grin skinned women there's a better RPG for you: FASAs
>> Star Trek.
>
>hehehe  True, but you can never go wrong with green skinned women - no?

One word: "gangrene." Still think "never"?  :)

JB

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 00:26:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: John H Bogan Jr <jbogan@pop.pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Honest Review of Emperor's Arsenal (long)

At 04:20 PM 4/7/97 +0000, Kenneth Bearden wrote:
>Good God, you are not going to belive this.  The Emperor's Arsenal is 
>the BEST supplement for T4 that has been produced yet.
>
>As a matter of fact, it is one of the BEST supplements produced for 
>Traveller in ANY edition.

[much deserved high praise deleted]

>And here's one of the true gems that the EA offers--THE ILLUSTRATIONS 
>ARE AWESOME!!!!!
>No more of that crappy Chris Foss stuff!
>Remember the neat illos that DGP used to put on their equipment 
>sheets?  These are just as good.


They should be -- it's the same artist.

EA's interior art is by Bryan Gibson, assisted by
Ashe Marler and Steve Bryant.

Many persons on this list will remember Bryan's
art from numerous 2300AD and MegaTraveller products.


>
>Great stuff, great stuff.  You really get a good idea of these 
>weapons from these pictures.  And, they all look functional.
>
>There is a multitude of weapons in the EA, from the TL 0 Axe to the 
>TL 15 Battle Pod, and let's not forget the TL 16+ chapter with 
>fragmentary knowledge on postulated weapons and Ancient discoveries.

The Battle Pods bring up a point people might
want to know -- Battle Dress (powered armor) has
apparently been shifted down the tech scale by two
or three levels. By tech 14, state-of-the-art in
front-line personal battlefield protection is a
cramped pod -- essentially an enclosed, armored
grav-bike with sensors, ECM, and alotta guns.
However, I would expect there to be advanced forms
of traditional Battle Dress at TL-14,15 to handle
less-intense combat and garrison roles.

The Ancients' artifacts are deliberate "GM 
reservations/playthings," so use them as you
wish however they might fit into your campaign.
(FIRE THE WAVE MOTION (big) GUN!)


>Look as I might, I could only find one thing wrong with EA, and this 
>is so trivial, it is hardly worth mentioning.
>What is it?  The cover art.  If they had got this right, I would 
>consider this a perfect book.

Well, I'd add:
   Inconsistent use (again) of dashes and hyphens to
represent negative signs;
   They missed some use of boldface type in the 
explainations of the meanings of the "x[Y]Y000z" 
nomenclature, which confused me until I saw the 
parts where they *hadn't* missed it, and backtracking 
what boldface was missing became trivial;
   The weapons technology section on p.21 is formatted
to have a short introduction, but instead dives right
into the text -- thus the first paragraph is inexplicably
separated from the rest of the text, since there's no
logical break there;
   Neither the First or Second Imperia beat TL-12 
(with perhaps some localized exceptions), so TLs-13-15
should NOT be "Second Imperium technology." Among old
ROM stuff advanced TL-13 stuff will be exceedingly rare
(and valuable [this advice provided free to slow GMs ^_^]),
and TL-14,15 nonexistent. Those running Classic, Rebellion,
or Virus-era campaigns will find it useful, though.

But, except for the last, these are basically nits. 




JB

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 16:58:44 +1200
From: Rupert Boleyn <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Fighters (as missile launchers)

At 02:14 8/04/97 GMT, you wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Apr 1997 12:12:54 -0700, you wrote:
>
>> End result both sides have likely lost both of their destroyers. Even
>> battle, well not really. You see the carrier while waiting for it's little
>> babies to return whistles another task force of say three heavy cruisers. On
>> the other hand the battleship is sitting there with a general idea that
>> there is a carrier out that away somewhere.
>
>You started your scenario with two more-or-less equally balanced task
>forces, and after the loss of both fleets' DDs, you admit that it is
>still a draw.  But then you disbalance things by reinforcing the CV
>fleet with three CAs... your whole example then shows the threat of
>becoming heavily lop-sided.
>
>Upon the two fleets' DDs spotting each other, I would imagine that not
>only would the BB accelerate to meet its DD screen, but that the DDs
>would attempt to fall back somewhat to gain the protection of the BB
>and delay the arrival of the fighters.  Doing so would draw the
>fighters in a bit closer, allowing the DDs to relay to the BB a decent
>bearing to the enemy CV (a good tactician could even gauge to range).
>
The BB's Task Force shouldn't even need to do that, as the Fighters would
need to take a fairly direct route to get there in time to do any good, so
the bearing is "straight behind" the Fighters (and you can just track them
back to the CV, anyway). Likewise the CV's range can be calculated based on
likely reaction times, and the Fighters' G rating (assuming your spy boys
have done their jobs :). Personally I wouldn't want to be anywhere on that
Carrier, CAs or no CAs when that Battleship gets there.

R. Boleyn

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 97 23:02:13 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: Re: Info needed!

In a message dated 1997-04-06 07:44, Leonard Erickson wrote:

>Anyway, right now, I'm interested in two items:
>
>1. Jump duration and/or accuracy
>	So far all I've found is the stuff that says "X parsecs" and
>	"one week" in all the rules, and the 120 + 2d*6 duration rule
>	from Starship Operator's manual. What other references are
>	there?

"Jump takes 168 hours (+/- 10%) to complete. this time is related to the 
nature of the alternate space being travelled in, and to the energy 
applied. Where time is a variable in travel in normal space, energy 
consumption is a variable in alternate space; time is a constant. 
Consequently, distance depends on the energy applied."

_Jumpspace_ by Marc W. Miller, Journal of the Travellers' Aid Society, 
No. 24, Page 34

Hope this helps.

===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 16:09:33 +1000
From: Jason Anderson <midnight@kagi.com>
Subject: Character generation question (T4)

Hi all,

This may seem like a simple question, but the rulebook doesn't seem to give
a clear answer. If a career has skills listed down the bottom area (ie:
below the skill tables), do they get those skills only once (ie: the first
term the PC takes that career), or do they get them every term. An example
of this is the Scout career, which has JoaT and two other skill clusters
listed (I can't remember what they are off the top of my head). I can
rationalise both ways, but I was wondering what the "official" word is.

Cheers,
Jason

- -------
Beyond Midnight Software                               <midnight@kagi.com>
                                      <http://www.vision.net.au/~midnight>

             If it's not on fire then it's a software problem.

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1156
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest       Tuesday, April 8 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1157



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Subject: Fighters revisted
...but there *are* fighters in traveller
Re: Fighters revisited
Re: Fighters yada yada yada
Re: Fighters and sensors
Re: Subject: Fighters revisted
Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)
Teleporting in floorfields
Re: Sensor strength analysis
Ground support (was fighters)
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters
Re: Fighters as defensive batteries.
Re: Subject: Fighters revisted
Re: G onset rate
Re: Character generation question (T4)
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Re: <STOP PRESS - DEATH OF EMPEROR>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 00:10:54 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Subject: Fighters revisted

 
> > Then the weapon needs that equipment, and you get the minimum size argument
> > again.
> 
> We have similiar targeting systems today, they dont add a significant
> amount to the weapons size, and your saying that by the 50th century
> (earth time) they wouldnt have miniturised to the  point of insignificance
> (weight related)?
 
Sensors are area dependant.  There is a physics limit on how small
they can possibly be.  Mass is not an issue (and their weight
depends on where you have the drive set :-P

> This may be so, but it was beyond the scope of the initail argument
> battlerider vs equal tonnage of fighters.
 
Then it was a stupid set of assumptions.  Cost is what matters.  The
tonnage you take out matters not, it's the _cost_ (men and machines,
both).

> During world war II the british could produce about 100 competent pilots
> or so every two months, and they had scarce manpower.  Germans could do
> even better.
 
How long does it take the US Airforce?  (funny I'm on this side of
things :-)  Actually, pilots are passengers anyway, the computer
will be doing all the evasion and fire control, the pilot tells it
where to go, and what to shoot at---sounds like a job for a robot
;-)

> > The first half perhaps, but not the second.  It always costs to train new
> > crew, and you always must use them in a way that maximizes their
> > effectiveness.
> 
> This si true, but there not a scarce resource.  Highly
> skilled/trained/experienced onses are but thats true in any field.

They're a scarce resource indeed in traveller (all the naval char
gen stressed that pilot was a selective branch (though actual
results may have varied).
 
> And what ive been trying to say is that, if accelration is the only
> measure of agility/manvr. its simplistic.  I have also been trying to say

You obviously don't know what acceleration is.  A ship has  position
in space.  If that position changes with time, it has a velocity (a
speed, plus a direction).  If the velocity is changing in time, then
it is accelerating (either the speed, or the direction of movement,
or both may change).  Period, there is nothing else to lump in with
acceleration (angular acceleration works the same way, but with
spin, but it doesn't change much (except the rate at which a given
ship can change facing).

> that if you have a system where it doesnt cost much more (or even
> cheaper!) to build a highly manvr. 100,000t battleship as opposed to a 10t
> fighter, thats also to simplistic, nay, perhaps ludicrous?

No, it's not.  I have an uncle with a speedboat, he couldn't
possibly keep up with CVN-65 (the Enterprise).  Not even at the
speed the Navy will admit to.  

Traveller drives require energy, and powerplants take up less mass
as a percentage of total mass for bigger ships.  Also, mass overhead
(structure/armor/etc.) for a fighter eats up a huge %.  This is the
killer.  Fighters, by definition, are equipment dense.  They have no
space wasted, it's all there for the job at hand, delivering
weapons.  The problem is that that role uses dense materials, so
getting acceleration becomes harder.

Remember that acceleration = Force/mass  up the mass, drop the
accel.

> I am listening, reread what i said.  If thats the way it is, thats fine,
> but, to then assert that it will cost (comparatively) as much to build a
> battleship as fast/manvr/ and accelrates as a small 1 man fighter, than
> thats a little odd.

See above.  And sure, it will cost less to make *one* 6g fighter
than *one* BB.  The problem is that for 10,000MCr, you can get a big
ship, but not near an equal tonnage of fighters.  Each fighter needs
to replicate all the gear on it's neighbor, where the BB can
economize on many features.  A fighter with one laser, and 4
missiles that has one active, and one passive sensor has 0.2 sensors
per weapon.  A BB might have 25 sensors, but maybe 25,000 weapons
(calling each missile a weapon as per the fighter)---that's 0.001
sensor per weapon (sensors ain't cheap).

> SCOTT!  READ IT ALL!  We were at that point speaking about carriers and
> battleships in the real world, thats why i use the symbol for Carrier
> Vehicle CV.  Were not talking about space at that point.
> 
> Man, read, and comprehend.
 
Why bring up current stuff if it has no relationship to space then?

- -Merrick

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 00:41:44 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: ...but there *are* fighters in traveller

An interesting historical note---there are fighters, even carriers
in traveller.  Hell, a BatRon of Tigress BBs has 2400 fighters just
from the BBs!

An these are 50ton heavy fighters!

A major role for these in a T-plate world is chasing down SDBs,
right? (they're hiding, so you need to spread out to find them)

The problem is that on order to even bother chasing down the SDBs,
the SDBs need to be dangerous (else why bother).  Traditionally SDBs
are no bigger than destroyers (Sup9 says 5ktons, right?).

In HG, missiles will scrub off weapons (maybe take out the drives).
Once the BB's meson gun is below factor 9, the ship is useless
against meson screened foes---BOOM!.  This is a rationale for
missiles, but not fighters (the fighter volume, plus its share of
the tubes, quarters, etc, on the carrier would be better spent on a
missile bay or two, then).  The added delta v of the fighter is a
major plus, however for deploying missiles at long ranges when you
are unsure about the path of the enemy.

I would suggest using nastier missiles.  The trick is that they
can't be too cheap, or all the missile bays would be full of them.
They also might not have a very good chance of ever hitting.  But
the knowlege that they are out there drives the escalation of ship
defenses (PD weapons, screening ships, etc.).  Remember that I'm
trying to explain why history is as it was presented to us!

So, as I see it, SDBs, and some fighters are loaded out with
"torpedos."  Torpedos would be missiles big enough to hurt a cruiser
or better.  Ignore your screening, and you're in trouble, but under
normal conditions torpedos get shot down long before they get close.
Skimming (with it's limitations (that _should_ be there :-) on
sensors might be a good place to get torpedoed.  This might explain
small SDBs.  They need to be at the right place at the right time to
have a chance to actually hurt something, so make lots of them.
I guess a nule detonated on contact would count as a torpedo
warhead, that or a small missile with huge delta v.

Otherwise, SDBs should be big-ass battleriders with huge spinal
mounts.  Anyway, get SDBs nasty and fighters exist for no other
reason than to kill SDBs!

Carriers would stay near the big boys and let the fighters screen
for SDBs.  Defensively, they could cover large volumes of space and
do some damage to in-jumping intruders.  In that case, insystem
patrols by defending fighters would be at high velocities )perhaps)
to allow them to shoot and be gone faster than the enemy can build up
speed.

In a full-blown fleet furball, the fighters would act as missile
bays---perhaps flanking the enemy so that they are forced to split
up their PD fire (I know that Batt. Bearing rules would make that
not a good idea, but what the hell :-)

They can at least shoot down incoming missiles, too.

- -Merrick

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 00:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Fighters revisited

> Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 17:30:10 -0700
> From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>

> However, the apperance of fighters tends to make everybody in range empty
> their weapons skyward.. and you never know when you'll be hit by a
> one-in-a-million shot.

Ah, the renowned "Golden BB Theory."  This was a tactical air-defense
doctrine recommended by Soviet advisors in poorly-equipped client states,
whose air defense weapons had not the least chance -- individually! -- of
downing a modern US aircraft.  So, the theory was to *fill the sky* above
the ground target with missiles, AA fire, BB-gun pellets, thrown rocks --
anything that could be lofted -- in the hopes that the attack planes
couldn't help running into *something* just by sheer dumb luck. 

Golden BB defenses worked partially for Libya in the mid-80s, and not at
all well for Iraq in 1991.  The theory was first honed over North Viet Nam
in the 60s, but there the technology gap was a bit smaller, and the number
of SAMs available much larger.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 00:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Fighters yada yada yada

Douglas writes:

> Right now, the Earth is revolving at about 900mph.  If I run east at 8mph,
> does this mean that I'm running at 892mph?  No, because relative to the
> Earth, I'm only doing 8mph.  The same thing in car crashes.. If two vehicles
> hit head on and 50mph each, the damge is going to be consitent with a 100mph
> collision.

Actually, it's even weirder than that.  If the two cars have equal masses,
and hit in such a way that they just crumple into one another (no
careening/spinning off to the sides/flipping over), the crash will be
*identical* to each vehicle hitting an utterly solid wall at 50mph.  Think
about it -- each vehicle decelerates from 50 to 0 in a few feet, in each
case.  This is one that a *lot* of people have trouble understanding, but
if you do, you'll have a far better handle on the physics of motion.

> If my Battleship (3g accel) has be boosting to a speed of 90,000kmh, and
> your fighter (6g accel) is boosting on a parrael course at 30,000kmh, to the
> fighter it will appear that battleships is pulling away at 60,000kph.  A
> fighter traveling straight towards the battleship at 90k/kph, will see the
> battleship flash by at 180k/kph.  Speed is simply a function of acceleration
> over time.  I could build a .0001g drive, and if I had enough fuel, take it
> up to a healthy fraction of c.

Acceleration *times* time, actually, and you're already travelling at
0.99c in any number of arbitrary inertial frames.  Any mention of 'speed'
has to explicitly or implicitly contain "relative to X" as a modifier.

> Most military ships will have high G ratings, simply because there comes a
> time when running is the best option.

Of course, Traveller has the odd twist that there are two ways to 'run'. 
I can see large ships being built with lowish g-ratings (like 2-3) on the
theory that (a) the party doesn't start 'til they arrive anyway, (b) 
lower thrust/power requirements leave more room for weaponry, and (c) if
things get too hot, they can always jump clear.  Smaller vessels, which
will more likely be used in pursuit and interface roles, would tend to
have higher accels (4-6). 

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 09:37:53 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Fighters and sensors

>Someone was saying that fighters mount less capable sensors, but couldn't
>they errrrmm, multiplex I thinks the word. You know like that very long
>baseline array telescope that NASA use made up of many small telescopes,
>If they worked in a squadron they could share data between themselves.
>Oh and probably been reading too much honor harrington but why is it that
>no ones mention in the ship combat threads passive sensor buoys, fire one
>out the back of ship watch it deplay and boom you've just doubled(or more
>) you passive sensor rating. Of course you'd have to be well away from it
>when it deployed so you wouldn't get seen doing it.
>Well is this a good idea?

I'm not shure resolution is the issue in sensors. Perhaps it is sensitivity
and that depends on collecting area, not resolution. The VLBI approach used
by radioastronomists creates a virtual telescope with a huge diameter
(giving high resolution) but the collecting area is the sum of all
individual telescopes areas.
Astronomers don't care much for collecting area as they can integrate over
long times - a luxury space combatants cannot afford for obvious reasons.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 04:43:44 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Subject: Fighters revisted

On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Merrick Burkhardt wrote:

>  
> > > Then the weapon needs that equipment, and you get the minimum size argument
> > > again.
> > 
> > We have similiar targeting systems today, they dont add a significant
> > amount to the weapons size, and your saying that by the 50th century
> > (earth time) they wouldnt have miniturised to the  point of insignificance
> > (weight related)?
>  
> Sensors are area dependant.  There is a physics limit on how small
> they can possibly be.  Mass is not an issue (and their weight
> depends on where you have the drive set :-P

Okay, cool.

> 
> > This may be so, but it was beyond the scope of the initail argument
> > battlerider vs equal tonnage of fighters.
>  
> Then it was a stupid set of assumptions.  Cost is what matters.  The
> tonnage you take out matters not, it's the _cost_ (men and machines,
> both).

Exactly, but i tried to remain within the bounds of the argument - hey i
was blown up by whoever it was for saying that a missile laden fighter
would be quite effective, he then asserted that in teh gulf war the USA
only used cruise missiles!  sheesh, i did my best is all.  If you dont
stay within bounds, what happened on this list happens - it just blows up.

> 
> > During world war II the british could produce about 100 competent pilots
> > or so every two months, and they had scarce manpower.  Germans could do
> > even better.
>  
> How long does it take the US Airforce?  (funny I'm on this side of
> things :-)  Actually, pilots are passengers anyway, the computer
> will be doing all the evasion and fire control, the pilot tells it
> where to go, and what to shoot at---sounds like a job for a robot
> ;-)

:)

> > that if you have a system where it doesnt cost much more (or even
> > cheaper!) to build a highly manvr. 100,000t battleship as opposed to a 10t
> > fighter, thats also to simplistic, nay, perhaps ludicrous?
> 
> No, it's not.  I have an uncle with a speedboat, he couldn't
> possibly keep up with CVN-65 (the Enterprise).  Not even at the
> speed the Navy will admit to.  

Seriously?  If thats so then i AM wrong. The ENterprise is that fast?????
or is your unles speed boat crappy :)

> > SCOTT!  READ IT ALL!  We were at that point speaking about carriers and
> > battleships in the real world, thats why i use the symbol for Carrier
> > Vehicle CV.  Were not talking about space at that point.
> > 
> > Man, read, and comprehend.
>  
> Why bring up current stuff if it has no relationship to space then?

ARGH!  I didnt, i was retorting an out of place statement someone made,
and then i get hammered.  I'll just shut up now :>

PaChi,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


"I rarely saw people sitting at computers producing real code
wearing ties."
  - Philippe Kahn (speech at Software Development '90 conference)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 09:44:06 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)

>Oops, I stand corrected. Sorry my mental reality shifted and I forgot about
>relativity. (Every have one of those days where the sky is a different
>color?)

That's not relativity that's classic Newton.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 09:42:17 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Teleporting in floorfields

>In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970404161800.006bf16c@wwwjci.lanl.gov>
>
><< Now to my answer for boarding actions.  Psionic
>teleportation.  OOO - AAA, I love Zhodani boarding
>actions.  Why the hell the Zhos lost the 5FW I'll
>never know!!! >>
>
>Tell me about it - my players use it all the time!
>
>A few problems:
>
>- knowledge of destination
>
>- range
>
>- matching vectors
>

Conservation of energy (a big issue according to canon) while jumping from
one floorfield to another. What is your potential energy while in a
floorfield? I've had a teleoprting PC die because he teleported from within
a floorfield way back when that issue seemed important. Now I don't have PC
with psionics so it is still a problem. Any ideas on how to solve this?


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 09:48:51 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Sensor strength analysis

>It seems a little weird at first, but trust me, db is the only reasonable
>way to talk about sensor performance.  Once you get used to it, you'll
>never go back...

Or more proper logaritms is the way to go in sensors. Actually one should
use logs in all areas of gaming as it simplifies to hit, damage,
penetration et c. Whn I switched my systems underlying principles to log
values (6 years ago) I finally came up with something that could be used on
fistfighting to space combat and everything in between without resorting to
persinal hitpoints, vehicular hitpoints, minor hits et c.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 22:41:06 +1200
From: Andrew Vallance <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
Subject: Ground support (was fighters)

>Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 17:30:10 -0700
>From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
>Subject: Re: Fighters revisted

>At 01:35 AM 4/8/97 +1000, "Solomani" wrote:
>>On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Andrew Vallance wrote:
>>> So can a battleship, it sits up high with good defenses against planetry
>>> based fire and shoots down. Very effective. A fighter on the other hand
>>> has to go down to where atmospheric interceptors (more effective than
>>> general purpose space fighters) can engage.

>>True.  Im also making an assumption here that in taking a world you dont
>>want to obliterate it.  So a battleship (unstreamlined cause its cheaper)
>>wouldnt have the finese for targeting as a fighter would.  Also
>>battleships couldnt give much support to troops on the ground (close
>>quarter support) as opposed to "we want this sector nuked" which the
>>battleship would be handy for :)

>A laser is a laser.  A battleship with a few *hundred* tunable lasers firing
>40 times a minute, could destroy entire armored divisions.  A single 7kl
>missle body could contain dozens of "flying crowbars," a guided kinetic-kill
>weapon.  There are many options open to the ship's Captain concerning ground
>support.

A laser is a laser is attenuated by atmosphere, affected by clouds etc.
Thrown ordinance has flight times which will be a major factor. And then
there's the horizon factor to consider, to be effective the big ship has
to sit in a fairly predictable orbit. I can't see the old rule that you
shouldn't put ships up against shore defences being any less valid in
Traveller. A deep seated meson gun will make short work of a capital
ship in the ground support role. Submarine based missiles and lasers will
be very effective, fixed sites almost as good. The big ships just won't
be committed until the surface defences have been neutralised. The best
way to neutralise them is by using ground troops, who need support in
the meantime.

>If the need for gross damage is seen, spinal mounted Meson guns will provide
>a suitible demostration.

A big nuclear missile is likely to be more effective, or even (at risk of
starting another pointless debate) the time tested game of "drop the rock".

>Remember, these weapons are designed to hit targets up to a light-second
>away, at relative velocities measuring thousands of km/sec!  Tagging a few
>hundred grav tanks from low orbit will be easy.

No it won't. detecting something in space is easy, detecting something in
an atmosphere is much harder. In space you have a nice featureless background
against which things stand out like a sore thumb. In an atmosphere there are
lots of things to hide behind, lots of ways of reducing your signature.
Things in an atmosphere have far less predictable vectors. Things in an
atmosphere can throw up things which can blind your sensors. You can't hit
what you can't see. Remember that those thousands of km/sec velocities are
mostly straight lines, things in an atmosphere rarely move in a straight
line for long. As an example way back in the seventies the US held an invasion
exercise against the Iranians (back when the Shah was around). The Iran Navy
totally creamed the US by using hovercraft towing very large aluminum
kites, basic reaction of the US sensor operators "What the hell is that?"
The point of this, interface operations is going to be a specialist role
for which your capital ships are just not going to be designed or trained.
Is that contact real or just a ghost? think fast because your only a few
hundred km's away and they know where you are (planet based sensors are
a lot better than yours). If you're wrong you are likely dead.

>>> However I would agree that in interface work fighters would be in their
>>> element. If your going to meet fighters anywhere it will be here.

>They would be most useful over the FEBA (Forward Edge of the Battle Area,
>where the forces were intermingled.. by being down in the dirt, the
>interface fighters could pick off "sprinting" grav vehicles and attack
>suspected headquarters.

>However, the apperance of fighters tends to make everybody in range empty
>their weapons skyward.. and you never know when you'll be hit by a
>one-in-a-million shot.

Frankly I'd rather run the million to one risk than make a very valuable
battleship (or cruiser) a sitting duck. So what ships will be used in
interface work? As I see it: firstly there's my beloved fighters, great
for direct support; then there will be the bomb ketches, smallish (destroyer
sized or so), not quick (2 maybe 3g), armour that would not go amiss on a
dreadnaught, heavy on other active and passive defence, best sensors you can
fit, armed mostly with missiles; and finally your strike cruisers, basically
scaled up bomb ketches, bit quicker, bit less well defended (they have to be
able to engage in space combat too) for deployment after the fighters and
bomb ketches have neutralised the planetary defences. The battleships are
not deployed until the closing stages, by which time its all over bar the
shouting.

  Andrew etc.
    a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz

****************************************************************************
  Be pure, Be strong, Behave
****************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 13:35:50 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

>As far as the look, you are right--MO has a feel of its own, and that
>feel is implausible.  The problem is that, eventhough MO is 1000
>years in CT's past, it is also over 4000 years in the future of the
>1950 AD era.   Arms in the year 0 should be much more advanced than
>conceptual designs from Terra's 1950's.

Actually, I don't think that the look of 1950s US cars was technologically
motivated. Therefore M0 vehicles etc does not hve to look futuristic but
I'm actually playing the devils advocate here; I too dislike the look of
the M0 stuff, especially the weaponry that IMO are NOT dictated by fashion
except hunting weaponry, knives etc. I was just arguing the point that it
would be cool to have stuff from different eras look different
stylistically.



/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 13:41:50 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

>I am not tying to state that one type of sensor is superior to another,
>just each has its weaknesses and strong points.

And I'm just stating that one of the advantages of actives (better range
measurement) is not very important when shooting straight beam attacks. All
you have to do is measure the angular velocity (have a rough estimate of
range (to get a ballpark figure for your TOT) and shoot at the spot on the
skydome. If target is 300 m further away so what? It'll hit the target one
millionth of a second later.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 13:49:05 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Fighters as defensive batteries.

>As for someone else's comments of adding up the surface area of the
>sensors on multiple fighters to form one large array, this also makes
>sense.

You'll need to know the location of each fighter to within one half
wavelength of the measured photons to do synthetic aperture stuff but I
might be way out on deep water here (somebody correct me on this issue if
I'm wrong).

One advantage of multiple sensors cooperating is that range calculations
for passives will be much better (some poeple on this list think range
precision is very important ;)


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 13:54:18 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Subject: Fighters revisted

>During world war II the british could produce about 100 competent pilots
>or so every two months, and they had scarce manpower.  Germans could do
>even better.

 Are you saying that flying a spacefighter relying solely on sensor data is
as easy as flying a WWII aircraft? Please don't give us some crap about
expert systems, VR-augmentations et c. It is a historical fact that air
superiority planes have gotten harder and harder to fly as time progresses.
I'm not saying that they'll get infinitely hard in the future but I think
you cannot take fior instance some farmboy on a desertplanet and drop him
into a space fighter wothout at least a years training.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 14:01:07 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: G onset rate

>Explain this G onset rate, it is not mentioned in the rules.

It's the rate of rate of change and more or less unimportant in Traveller.
People tend to do analogies with bodern day stuff like fighterplane engines
which doesn't hold in Traveller. The time going from idle to full throttle
in a fighter has to do with the time to spin up the turbine. In Traveller
you flip a switch and you get full thrust right away.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 07:05:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: Character generation question (T4)

On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Jason Anderson wrote:

> This may seem like a simple question, but the rulebook doesn't seem to give
> a clear answer. If a career has skills listed down the bottom area (ie:
> below the skill tables), do they get those skills only once (ie: the first
> term the PC takes that career), or do they get them every term. An example
> of this is the Scout career, which has JoaT and two other skill clusters
> listed (I can't remember what they are off the top of my head). I can
> rationalise both ways, but I was wondering what the "official" word is.

You mean "Rank and Service Skills?"  These are received as part of basic 
training/orientation/officer training/etc.  So, characters only get them 
once.  And, if they already have that skill (from another career, or 
whatever), they don't increase their skill level any.  They just get the 
skill level listed (i.e., for Noble, Charisma-1 and Fencing-1), because 
the basic training or whatever just teaches level-1; they're not going to 
set up a special class just to teach level-2 to a couple of recruits. [G]


- -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: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 08:22:43 -0400
From: Mark Urbin <eclipse@ultranet.com>
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

Douglas <douglas@*teleport.com> writes:
>I almost hate to ask, I know this has probably been discussed and I missed
>the thread, but....
>Where are the design rules for weapons?  Are the FF&S rules in effect for
>T4?

 The small arms design rules for T4 is the Guns, Guns, and More Guns book.
also known as Guns Cubed.


- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
eclipse@ultranet.com http://www.ultranet.com/~eclipse/  Opinions Mine!
"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates
in the country." -- Mayor Marion Barry, Washington, D.C.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 14:31:47 MET
From: "Volker A. Greimann" <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
Subject: Re: <STOP PRESS - DEATH OF EMPEROR>

Zhodani agents report that SD Mooney wrote:

- -> Breaking news from the Xboat network - the Emperor was murdered by
- -> Archduke Dulinor during an audience in the Throne room, on Capital.
- -> Dulinor then claimed the throne by right of assassination. The
- -> succession has yet to be confirmed by the Moot. Imperial sources
- -> have indicated that the fleet is being mobilised to crush the
- -> usurper, in a campaign that is not expected to take less than six
- -> months.

- -> Okay, so I just noticed that the last Digest I got was number 1116.
- ->  ;-)

When i just read  the number of mails received  after coming back 
from my easter holidays, guess what it said....
Yes: 1116 what a coincidence! 
Ad Astra,

V.A.G.       
- ------  Volker A. Greimann, also known as: Grei5001@uni-trier.de  ----
- -- Am Weidengraben 86,C6 - 54296 Trier - Germany - T+F: +49651148846 -
- ---- Student of Law, Gamer, Illuminatus Primus, Slayer of Windows95 --
- -----  "Don't hold me up: I am just barely ahead of insanity!!!" -----

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1157
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest       Tuesday, April 8 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1158



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Excellent SSDS Spreadsheet
Re: Law School
Re: Colour of the sky
Re: Traveller Atlas: AtariST Emulation on Mac
Re: Sylea --> Capitol
Re: The Torden is under testing
[none]
Wither the Meson Gun?
M:0 map and what happened to Zhunastu Enterprises?
Solomani!
Re: Fighters revisted (Long)
More RICE Papers
re: Fighters and sensors
Re: M:0 map and what happened to Zhunastu Enterprises?
Spreadsheet wanted
Picking Nits on Emperor's Arsenal
(Fwd) Re: M:0 map and what happened to Zhunastu Enterprises?
Re: Subject: Fighters revisted
Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters
Was: Fighters, Now: Boats (Off-Topic)_

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 19:57:07 -0500
From: "Andrew Akins" <igor@netins.net>
Subject: Re: Excellent SSDS Spreadsheet

On April 7 1997, Mark Bradley wrote:

>I just wanted to post a thank you on the TML to Andy Akins for the work
>he did in creating a very comprehensive spreadsheet for SSDS.  While
>the spreadsheet has a few limitations, Andy has gone to the work of
>including all the tables from SSDS.  The most notable limitation is that
all
>the components must have the same TL, but this would not be hard to
>amend.
>
>I have one question though:  What's a jump capsule?
>
>Nice work Andy.

Thank you very much :)

If you have any suggestions on how to implement the different TL for
difference components, I'd love to hear it.

As far as jump capsules are concerned, they are from Classic Traveller,
Striker Book 2. Thus they are non-standard, and your design may not be
legal in a T4 tournament if you use them. Basically, jump capsules are
armored pods that allow soldiers to perform combat drops into hostile
territories from orbit. They have been canon in every version of Traveller,
including T4 ( M0 talks about the Sylean capital being built pyramid shaped
to repel Jump Troops ), but I believe Striker was the only system that
provided rules for them.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Andrew Akins                                                       |
| Home: igor@netins.net - http://www.netins.net/showcase/theakins/   |
| Work: andya@cms-gt.com - http://www.cms-gt.com/                    |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| May your villages remain ignorant of tax collectors, and may your  |
| sons be many and ugly and strong and willing workers, and may your |
| daughters be few and beautiful and excellent providers of love     |
| gifts from eminent families that live very far away, and may your  |
| lives be blessed by the beauty that has touched mine.              |
|                    - Number Ten Ox, "Bridge of Birds"              |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 15:15:31 MET
From: "Volker A. Greimann" <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
Subject: Re: Law School

Zhodani agents report that Glenn M. Goffin wrote:

- -> >        Maybe Volker can tell us how it works in Germany?
I'll try to give a short outline:
After finishing Gymnasium (last 3 years of school up to 13th grade), 
most of us have to do military or civil service (male only).
After that, we're free to go to university on any subject we choose! 
Legal studies take 8+X (our own choice) semesters. After that we take 
a number of written and an oral exam. After that we have to take an 
internship with a court, a firm, etc... 
That qualifies us for some areas of legal work.
Then we may take the second exam, again written and oral, which 
qualifies us for judge duty and most higher posts.
Ad Astra,

V.A.G.       
- ------  Volker A. Greimann, also known as: Grei5001@uni-trier.de  ----
- -- Am Weidengraben 86,C6 - 54296 Trier - Germany - T+F: +49651148846 -
- ---- Student of Law, Gamer, Illuminatus Primus, Slayer of Windows95 --
- -----  "Don't hold me up: I am just barely ahead of insanity!!!" -----

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 15:33:28 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Colour of the sky

>Thanks, Michael. I thought that the type F star might also have an effect,
>but the more I thought about with my non-scientific brain, I realized that
>it's not that the light given off by the star that makes it white, but the
>heat of the star itself. Therefore, the light wouldn't be any different.

I don't understand: What is the differance between "the light given off by
the star" and "the heat of the star itself". The light given off from a
star is perfect blackbody (ie temperature radiation) minus some absorption
lines from various atoms in the outer part of the star.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 15:28:14 MET
From: "Volker A. Greimann" <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
Subject: Re: Traveller Atlas: AtariST Emulation on Mac

Zhodani agents report that Zane H. Healy wrote:

- -> 
- -> I've got to agree about the German menu's being annoying, one of
- -> these day's I'm going to have to break down and learn German.  I
- -> keep running into software or documentation that is only available
- -> in it.
;-) Good idea!
Ad Astra,

V.A.G.       
- ------  Volker A. Greimann, also known as: Grei5001@uni-trier.de  ----
- -- Am Weidengraben 86,C6 - 54296 Trier - Germany - T+F: +49651148846 -
- ---- Student of Law, Gamer, Illuminatus Primus, Slayer of Windows95 --
- -----  "Don't hold me up: I am just barely ahead of insanity!!!" -----

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 15:35:00 MET
From: "Volker A. Greimann" <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
Subject: Re: Sylea --> Capitol

Zhodani agents report that K.C. Komosky wrote:

- ->  Here's a question: does anyone know when Sylea was renamed as
- ->  Capitol? Od does anyone have any educated guesses when this might
- ->  happen?

I always wondered about this, too.
Additional, i found a reference in old MT lib-data as to Capital 
being in hex 0508. Checking M:0 i find that hex empty! Anyone???????

Ad Astra,

V.A.G.       
- ------  Volker A. Greimann, also known as: Grei5001@uni-trier.de  ----
- -- Am Weidengraben 86,C6 - 54296 Trier - Germany - T+F: +49651148846 -
- ---- Student of Law, Gamer, Illuminatus Primus, Slayer of Windows95 --
- -----  "Don't hold me up: I am just barely ahead of insanity!!!" -----

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 08:33:50 -0500
From: Paul Walker <tiger@goldinc.com>
Subject: Re: The Torden is under testing

>--------Roleplaying off------------------------------------------
>
>I hope that my design for the patrol cruiser will be finished
>for the competition, but I have a question.
>
>I wanted a larger armour than the ones presented in QSDS and 
>Wildstars Huge Table of Hulls, so I used FF&S to design a 
>600 Std Needle Airframe that I think is QSDS compatible.
>Would there be anyone in the ISBA organization that would 
>feel this as unfair, or is it just illegal under the THUDDDs
>rules?   
>    

Official Proclomation is that it is illegal, but in this case (that being
that the contest chairperson (me:) didn't think of it before announcing the
requirements, I think we may make an exception.  I do believe there is a
spreadsheet out there that will make  QSDS compatible hulls though, you
might check around for it first though.

    Paul {tiger}
     tiger@goldinc.com
     http://www.goldinc.com/~tiger

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 15:55:16 MET
From: "Volker A. Greimann" <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
Subject: [none]

Well, Loren, 
I am still waiting to send you money!
Have you figured out the exact amount due now?
Ad Astra,

V.A.G.       
- ------  Volker A. Greimann, also known as: Grei5001@uni-trier.de  ----
- -- Am Weidengraben 86,C6 - 54296 Trier - Germany - T+F: +49651148846 -
- ---- Student of Law, Gamer, Illuminatus Primus, Slayer of Windows95 --
- -----  "Don't hold me up: I am just barely ahead of insanity!!!" -----

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 10:24:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ethan Henry <ehenry@mag1.magmacom.com>
Subject: Wither the Meson Gun?

OK,

so I'm trying to design a Patrol Cruiser for the THUDDD and I thought
"Hey, a military ship, why not see if I can jam a spinal mount into this
thing". And I did. And do you know what?

It sucks!

Why on earth (er, in space) would anyone use one of those 1,000Mj
Meson guns? They end up with a USP rating of 1-0-0-0! That sucks!
You'd be better off with lasers of any form. Grrrr.

Also, some of QSDS military lasers have pretty wicked USP ratings,
like 9-7-5-3 or somesuch. I find it pretty difficult to design as
effective a weapon using SSDS.

What gives?

Also, is there a list of SSDS errata around and where's that way-cool
SSDS spreadsheet someone mentioned a few digests back?

Ethan
- -- 
ehenry@magma.ca                                  http://www.magma.ca/~ehenry

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 16:19:46 MET
From: "Volker A. Greimann" <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
Subject: M:0 map and what happened to Zhunastu Enterprises?

My problems with M:0:
First of all, let me say that i think that M:0 is an exellent book! I 
am looking forward to the next CORE book! You guys could well become 
the next DGP!
However i have a lot of problems with the sector data and the map.
The map is almost useless to me, since ist leaves out most of the 
relevant information, like the Starport. How can one leave out the 
starports in a referee-only book?
The sector data is, well let's just say not very well printed! It 
takes up too much space (font too large etc.) Also, i find that there 
are too many Ancient sites. There are more sites than 
in the entire SM-Sector, the professed "hotbed" of Ancient activity, 
whith the largest (not anymore???!) number of sites!

One further Question: What will happen to Zhunastu enterprises? Since 
it won't be there as a MegaCorp in 1105+ anymore, there's room for 
speculation. Did it go bankrupt (not likely) or was it destroyed with 
the death of Cleon the Mad or didn't it survive the Civil war (again, 
not likely, since the Civil war didn't affect the private sector 
that much!). Son what happened?
Ad Astra,

V.A.G.       
- ------  Volker A. Greimann, also known as: Grei5001@uni-trier.de  ----
- -- Am Weidengraben 86,C6 - 54296 Trier - Germany - T+F: +49651148846 -
- ---- Student of Law, Gamer, Illuminatus Primus, Slayer of Windows95 --
- -----  "Don't hold me up: I am just barely ahead of insanity!!!" -----

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 16:27:46 MET
From: "Volker A. Greimann" <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
Subject: Solomani!

I believe Solomani simply stands for "Men from Sol"!
Sol is our sun, as in solar system.
Ad Astra,

V.A.G.       
- ------  Volker A. Greimann, also known as: Grei5001@uni-trier.de  ----
- -- Am Weidengraben 86,C6 - 54296 Trier - Germany - T+F: +49651148846 -
- ---- Student of Law, Gamer, Illuminatus Primus, Slayer of Windows95 --
- -----  "Don't hold me up: I am just barely ahead of insanity!!!" -----

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 02:51:20 +1200
From: Andrew Vallance <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Fighters revisted (Long)

Okay this is my third attempt to send this message, my apologies if
they all appear at once :*)

>Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 01:35:03 +1000 (EST)
>From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
>Subject: Fighters revisted

>On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Andrew Vallance wrote:

>I liked the points you made Andrew, and i agree with most, but heres my
>thinking.

Why thank you. Like you I do believe fighters have a place in Traveller.
I don't see them as the dogfighting versions beloved of SF movies, more
as the space equivilant of Fast Attack Craft. The carrier as I see it
is not carring F/A-18's, but something closer to a Osa or Tarantil <sp>

>>just don't have the size to mount the sensors of a big ship and their
>>crews aren't large enough for any slack.

>They dont need the sensors of a big ship.  It would be wastage.  They
>would be ordered (im assume) to go to cordinates x,y,z and engage detected
>hostiles.  They would just need targeting, and even this may be redundent

They still need sensors, even with smart missiles they have to know which
direction to point them :*).

>>>Fighters would be quite versatile as well.  Fighters could more easily
>>>(and cheaply) be used for planetary warfare, so there dual role would be
>>>valuable.

>>So can a battleship, it sits up high with good defenses against planetry
>>based fire and shoots down. Very effective. A fighter on the other hand
>>has to go down to where atmospheric interceptors (more effective than
>>general purpose space fighters) can engage.

>True.  Im also making an assumption here that in taking a world you dont
>want to obliterate it.  So a battleship (unstreamlined cause its cheaper)
>wouldnt have the finese for targeting as a fighter would.  Also
>battleships couldnt give much support to troops on the ground (close
>quarter support) as opposed to "we want this sector nuked" which the
>battleship would be handy for :)

There's a maxim with artillery, it goes "Don't tap it, thump it". Orbiting
battleships would be *very* good at thumping things. However as you point
out there are problems with ortillery (orbital artillery). The atmosphere
makes targeting difficult; assuming that most ortillery will be missile
fire (or more likely smart deadfall) there's a time delay; it relies on
having your big ships in orbit where they are vulunerable to planetry based
fire; its not as flexible as direct support; and probably most important, it
doesn't have the same morale effect. There's something very comforting for
the troops on the ground to be able to physically see their support. It
might be nice to see a concentration of enemy troops or a bunker disappear
from orbital fire, but the troops would most likely prefer to see a squadron
of fighters roar overhead. It just makes them feel safer, regardless of the
reality of the situation.

>>Carrying a weapon is very different from being able to target with it.
>>The biggest weapon in the world is of little use if you can't hit with it.
>>In space combat the velocity are going to so great that you're going to
>>have very short engagement times. Therefore you are going to need some
>>very effective targeting and control; and there will be a minimum size craft
>>required to mount it.

>Okay, lets assume that the weapon is a smart device, has inbuilt targeting.
>Maybe its so smart that it homes in on transponder signals. No need for
>excessively complicated targeting on the fighter itself, just on the
>weapon.  What do you think of that?

I'd agree here. Missiles regardless of launching platform would be "smart"
missiles. They might be terminal guidance (they get close, activate their
own sensors and locate and lock on), Radiation Homing (rely on active
emissions of the target, the classic ARM missile, good at taking out your
enemies active sensors), or semi-active homing (rely on illumination of the
target by another source). Fighters could use either terminal guidance or
radiation homing. The fighter still needs to have some sensors (you have
to know roughly where the target is). They'd have to be passive (better
range and less likely to assist the enemy targeting you). This makes a
fighter a missile launch rack. Esentially increasing the survivability
of your armarment by spreading it out over a larger area and making the
launchers individually mobile. A very rough analogy might be an artillery
battery in a dispersed battery site (heavy emphasis on the rough analogy).
The question here is does the increase in survivablity make up for the
increased cost (both in Cr and tonnage) of the figther support facilities?

Here's an interesting thought. If Thrust plates emit a range of unusual
particles (SSDS), why not build a missile with a guidance system which
homes in on them? The traveller equivilent of a Sidewinder. If you switch
off your thrusters you become a sitting duck. This gives the counter
measure of thruster flares.

>>A battleship (100,000Td+) could quite concievably handle several hundred
>>missile attacks and probably absorb quite a few that get through. Plus
>>battleships wouldn't operate individually, they'd operate as part of an
>>intergrated task group with significant small escorts, greatly increasing
>>their survivability.

>Yes of course, but the orginal poster used 1 battlerider vs an equal
>tonnage of fighters, which i think is wrong (and i stated so) but i
>remained within the confines of the argument.

Sorry, I hadn't been following the full thread. Any admiral who would
commit any capital ship without support deserves to be cashiered.

>Also, pilot scarceness is culturally linked as well as resource linked.
>Germany in wwII had no real problem in finding pilots, nor did japan (they
>sacrificed hundreds by the end of the war).  The soviet union and the USA
>also didnt have extensive problems with pilot acquisition, while England
>did.

As an aside, the Japanese at the end of the war did have very big problems
with finding pilots. They had started the war with the best pilots in the
world, but had an inadequate training system and couldn't replace their
losses. They went to great lengths to avoid using pilots in kamakazi attacks
(generally unsuccesfully I might add). The crews of the kamakazi aircraft
weren't pilots, they were a missile guidance system; trained in bulk to
take off, fly a very basic course and crash (they were not trained to land),
They were trained on the ground, many of them never took off in an aircraft
before their actual mission.
Incidently the during the 2nd WW the British developed a very effective
system of missile guidance based around trained pidgens, capable of taking
individual bridge supports over 1,000km. It was never deployed. Apparently
the British high command was heavy in bird fanciers, and as the pidgen died,
they considered it to be just not good form. The worlds first (and only) PGM
(Pidgen Guided Munition). Just another bit of mindless trivia, but I'm sure
an enterprising traveller umpire could work that one in somewhere :*).

>Im assuming that the opposing powers are of equal resource strength (large
>empires perhaps?) and wouldnt have a great problem with training new
>pilots - which still doesnt justfy wasting them though.

Its not the problem of finding new pilots, its the problem of training them.
At least two years, which goes a good way to negating the speed of
construction advantage. Plus you have to devote considerable resources to
maintaining a training establishment, pilots are training intensive.

>>The hstorical reason for the supremacy of the carrier is very simple, it
>>can be summed up in one word: Range. A battleship is capable of absorbing
>>far more damage than a carrier, can carry far better defences and can
>>fight in conditions which will leave a carrier floundering. The only
>>advantage the carrier has is range. A battleship can engage targets maybe
>>40Km away, a carrier 400Km away. In space this advantage is much less.
>>Plus much of the aircrafts advantages depend on recoving a significant
>>number of lost crews, which isn't going to happen in space.

>True.  So perhaps we should remould the argument.  Im willing to concede
>that carrier based massed fighters maybe redundent, but what about planet
>based or mixed arm battleships (battleship carries a small squadron of
>planes)?

An interesting idea. It comes down to do the advantages of the fighters
(increased survivability of your missile batteries and increased flexibility
of role for the missile batteries) make up for the cost of the fighter
support facilities? Under HG I think it would, I'm not sure about FFS or T4.

As to operations around a planet, its a whole different coffee pot of
herrings. Here the fighter does make sense. The ranges will be much closer,
the big ship is deprived of it's range advantage, the fighter can hide by
skooting down into the atmoshpere. Here you need a carrier with your own
fighters to deal with the planetry based fighters. Even a 2000Td destroyer
is going to have to think very careful about following fighters down into an
atmosphere.

>>Oh and BTW the last classic battleship dual was in the Pacific in 1944.

>Hmmm, have to check that, Gualdalcanal? (mispelled for sure)

Guadalcanal. But no it was Surigao Strait. Fuso and Yamashiro against
Tennesse, West Virginia, Maryland and Mississippi; 24-25 Oct 1944. The
Japanese lost.

>>A big ship can put its critical systems at its core. Making them all but
>>impossible to hit. You will be able to hurt a ship by hitting its vulnerable
>>surface systems, but your unlikely to kill it. What you can do however is
>>soften it up for an easy kill by a bigger ship.

>True, but its more convenient to place sensors and the bridge in usually
>susceptable places.  Also, the spinal mount can be susceptable to attack
>as well as the engines.  The destruction of anyone of these things will
>badly affect the battleships combat ability.

Exactly, the fighters don't "kill" the ship, but weaken it so another big
ship can easily. But in this role the fighters would have to stick close
to your own big ships for protection. Here the analogy is torpedo boats,
they hide behind your battle line and dash out and launch a stand off
attack. Think of the classic torpeodo charge. They don't even have to
actually inflict any real damage on the enemy, just launch enough missiles
to occupy them for a bit, giving your big ships a tactical advantage.
There are certain systems which just have to on or near the surface. Things
like sensors, drive exhausts, weapons etc (not incidentaly the bridge, the
modern CIC is put very deep in the ship); and these will be vulunerable and
the loss of them will really hurt.

>>The fighter/ship analogy is not a good one, a far better one is FAC/ship.
>>space fighters don't have the massive speed advantage. Throw 100+ Osa II
>>against a Iowa plus escorts and the Iowa wins. Space fighters won't be able
>>to do the hit and run that modern aircraft rely on against ships.

>So, the assumption (which may well be right - i havnt played traveller in
>years, and never played the current version) is that Battleships, in the
>main, no matter what size, will have 6g acceleration?

I'm not really qualified to comment. I'd see the average battleship as
having 4 or 5g acceleration, so the fighter would have a slight edge, just
enough to act as a torpedo boat. However I am not that familiar with either
T4 design or FFS to make a good judgement. I still use HG. I'm not that
interested in indepth ship designs, I regard it as a distraction from role
playing (No value judgement, just what I personally prefer).


>>Yes, but battleships would carry comparitevly few big guns, most of their
>>weaponry would be smaller weapons to keep fighters and other smaller ships
>>at bay. The big guns would be truely impressive, but they would have a
>>very respectable secondary armarment.

>Which, again i will concede.  I was seperating a HS weapons as they are
>today, and have been for many years - Big Guns used for shore bombardment
>and capital vs capital combat and PD weapons used for anti air warfare.

As someone has pointed out, in M:0 this may not be true, ships might not
have a good secondary anti-fighter armarment. However as soon as fighters
appear, they will get one PDQ.

>Also, if i remember corecctly the High Guard rules had a limit on the
>number of turrets that a vessel could have, is this still true?  If so,
>then fighters could outgun Battleships in equal tonnange/cost (?)

As I understand it, no its not. The limit now is volume and surface area.
But then again, I still use HG. It produces ships I regard as good enough
and allows me to conentrate on what I prefer (roleplaying). I've yet to
see any PC's in a ship which can slug it out with even a 2000Td escort,
so as long as the rules reflect that, I'm happy :*). Any rule system that
gives the PC's a chance of taking out a 100,000Td battleship is fundimentally
broken IMHO (not that any traveller system does as far as I'm aware).

  Andrew etc.
    a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz

****************************************************************************
  Be pure, Be strong, Behave
****************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 97 11:39:40 -0400
From: Lewis Roberts <lewis@chara.gsu.edu>
Subject: More RICE Papers

Hi,
I wrote three RICE papers, Hexos, Gerome, and Lewis. All three planets
are Red Zones in the Spinward Marches. They are all available on my web
page. URL is below.

Lewis Roberts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Q:Why does a cow wear a bell?
A:Because its horns don't work.

lewis@chara.gsu.edu
http://www.chara.gsu.edu/~lewis/roberts.html
- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 08:59:08 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: Fighters and sensors

>Someone was saying that fighters mount less capable sensors, but couldn't 
>they errrrmm, multiplex I thinks the word. You know like that very long 
>baseline array telescope that NASA use made up of many small telescopes, 

NASA doesn't actually have an array like this right now. (JPL does,
but I'm not sure that counts.) A few other groups do...all on the ground,
where you can physically connect the telescopes. For this to work you need
to know the distance between the spacecraft to within a fraction of a
wavelength of light, which is hard to do for spacecraft that are
trying to fight.

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 10:48:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: M:0 map and what happened to Zhunastu Enterprises?

On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Volker A. Greimann wrote:

> However i have a lot of problems with the sector data and the map.
> The map is almost useless to me, since ist leaves out most of the 
> relevant information, like the Starport. How can one leave out the 
> starports in a referee-only book?

We (CORE) prepared a set of data and maps, per instructions, for M0.  We 
were told that FS would include our data as well.  Instead, it was decided 
that our data and maps should be removed, and the FS data and maps put 
in.  Thus, what you are seeing in M0 is actually the data and maps 
created by Marc Miller for the First Survey product.


> One further Question: What will happen to Zhunastu enterprises? Since 
> it won't be there as a MegaCorp in 1105+ anymore, there's room for 
> speculation. Did it go bankrupt (not likely) or was it destroyed with 
> the death of Cleon the Mad or didn't it survive the Civil war (again, 
> not likely, since the Civil war didn't affect the private sector 
> that much!). Son what happened?

You'll find out in a future Milieu product. :)


- -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: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 12:09:22 -0400
From: 34zbtxq@cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu (Susan M. Shock)
Subject: Spreadsheet wanted

I have a spreadsheet called STARS-V1 that does ships in FF&S, BR and T4
style. I seem to recall the owner saying that he had done a STARS-v2 which
would reflect the revised USP that Wildstar came up with. Could anyone point
me to where to obtain this? Thanks :)

Allen

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 09:16:38 -0700
From: Douglas McCorison <douglas@camax.com>
Subject: Picking Nits on Emperor's Arsenal

Well, I got the EA this weekend.  I've had a chance to go through the
whole thing.  I really like it, and some of my players are going to LOVE
it.  It's going to be a bitch to keep some toys away from them :).  The
only nit I found, and annoying it was though not devasting:

In the PCMP-12 description, the data area showing T4 stats is empty.  

Since this info is in two other places (I LIKE the stats with the
weapon, table for TL, and overall table at the end layout) it isn't
devasting, it just gave me a moment's confusion.

Douglas

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 09:28:59 -0800
From: "Stuart L. Dollar" <sdollar@pop.goodnet.com>
Subject: (Fwd) Re: M:0 map and what happened to Zhunastu Enterprises?

On  8 Apr 97 at 16:19, Volker A. Greimann spewed:

> One further Question: What will happen to Zhunastu enterprises?

You're not cleared for that information, citizen.  <G>

> Since it won't be there as a MegaCorp in 1105+ anymore, there's room
> for speculation. Did it go bankrupt (not likely) or was it destroyed

Why is it not likely that a business would go bankrupt in the course
of 1100 years?  Other than the Roman Catholic Church, a few assorted
monarchies, and a few other religions, I can think of very few
organizations that existed 1100 years ago that exist now in the same
form, if they exist at all.  

This, btw, was the reason for the inclusion of a few M:0 megacorps
that you had never heard of.

Stu
Stuart L. Dollar               sdollar@goodnet.com
- ---------------------------------------------------
Member of CORE.  Co-Designer of Milieu 0 and other 
Traveller products.  
"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." 
- -Thomas Jefferson

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 10:35:49 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Subject: Fighters revisted

 
> > No, it's not.  I have an uncle with a speedboat, he couldn't
> > possibly keep up with CVN-65 (the Enterprise).  Not even at the
> > speed the Navy will admit to.  
> 
> Seriously?  If thats so then i AM wrong. The ENterprise is that fast?????
> or is your unles speed boat crappy :)
 
I think the Navy admits to something like 40 knots (any squids out
there?).  Stories about "rushing to a liberty port" abound in
sci.military.naval at some absurdly high speed.

Ships are still a bad example, though, since watercraft have a
maximum speed based on their length (longer is faster).  Small sea
craft need to go to hydrofoils to avoid this (leave the water, avoid
the length = speed thing).  The point of bringing it up was that in
the case of a CVN (or any nuke ship) they have huge amounts of power
to give to propulsion.  Per unit mass, they have to generate more
energy than a speedboat---that is the link to traveller.  Big ships
have huge powerplants.  Give that energy to propulsion and you're
gonna accelerate.

Since a BB is less dense than a fighter it has a better thrust/mass
ratio.  Fusion+ might help out here, however.  \

> and then i get hammered.  I'll just shut up now :>
 
Sorry, this thread is too mixed up to attribute stuff well any more.
It's an interesting thread, or it wouldn't have taken on a life of
its own...

- -Merrick

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 10:41:46 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

 
> And I'm just stating that one of the advantages of actives (better range
> measurement) is not very important when shooting straight beam attacks. All
> you have to do is measure the angular velocity (have a rough estimate of
> range (to get a ballpark figure for your TOT) and shoot at the spot on the
> skydome. If target is 300 m further away so what? It'll hit the target one
> millionth of a second later.

Hmm.  I like the idea of actives falling off fast, but providing an
r value (distance) to the target.  This becomes important for meson
guns and missiles, both of which need to hit a target in 3 space.

It might be interesting to have a "passive lock" and an "active
lock."  Passive would allow direct fire ('cept MGs), and MG fire at
a -DM.  Active would allow MGs to avoid the -DM.  Missiles could
home on targets only with better data, other wise they'd be bearing
lanched, then would home when they get closer.  Of course it makes
little difference since the passives can triangulate distance pretty
quickly sinc the sensor platform moves fast enough to create a good
baseline in a few seconds.

- -Merrick

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 13:03:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: "John P. Raynor" <john.raynor@yale.edu>
Subject: Was: Fighters, Now: Boats (Off-Topic)_

On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, Solomani wrote:
> Seriously?  If thats so then i AM wrong. The ENterprise is that fast?????
> or is your unles speed boat crappy :)

I'm willing to believe that an aircraft carrier can outrun a speedboat.  I
believe a ship's speed is, at least in part, determined by its length at
the waterline, although I can't say I understand the physics of this
phenomenon (I think it has something to do with the ratio of drag at the
air/water interface, versus the overall volume of the hull - which might
have something to do with the speed of submarines, too - but I'm really
in, uh, over my head, hydrodynamically-speaking, and am probably at least
partially wrong).  Racing yachts are often built with a "reverse transom,"
to increase their length at the waterline, without increasing their length
overall (which, I believe, is important for determining which races
they can legally be entered into, for arcane reasons).
                                                           - J. Raynor

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1158
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest       Tuesday, April 8 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1159



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: TL & the Darrians
Re: Excellent SSDS Spreadsheet
TLs of Imperiums I, II and III
Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Re: Subject: Fighters revisited
Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters
re: Wither the Meson Gun?
Re: TL & the Darrians
Re: Fighters Again (Long) And Pigeons
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Jane's Air Launched Weapons (was Re: Fighters - what ranges???)
Re: [Traveller Answer] Materials Costs
Re: Fighters revisted

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 19:22:59 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: TL & the Darrians

Anders Backman writes:

>>I can't come up with any scenario that allows a university to survive
>>yet destroys the knowledge it contains. Can you?
>
>Well this sole surviving University happens to be only arts and humaniora.

That turns out not to be the case. The University of Zlodh is the principal
university of the Zlodh Basin, the Darrian equivalent of a continent. And
_Darrians_ makes it clear that it was engaged in physical sciences (One
of the two "Star Trigger" projects was run from it). It is not just arts
and humaniora.

Try again.


      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: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 12:30:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Peter  H. Brenton" <pete@cummings.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Excellent SSDS Spreadsheet

On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Andrew Akins wrote:

> On April 7 1997, Mark Bradley wrote:
> 
> >I have one question though:  What's a jump capsule?
> >
> As far as jump capsules are concerned, they are from Classic Traveller,
> Striker Book 2. Thus they are non-standard, and your design may not be
> legal in a T4 tournament if you use them. Basically, jump capsules are
> armored pods that allow soldiers to perform combat drops into hostile
> territories from orbit. They have been canon in every version of Traveller,
> including T4 ( M0 talks about the Sylean capital being built pyramid shaped
> to repel Jump Troops ), but I believe Striker was the only system that
> provided rules for them.
> 
There were jump capsules on board the Kinunir (Adventure 1 I think)
although I do not remember how much detail they had re; rules.  

"I sat in my cocoon, unable to move.  If the ship were hit at that moment
we would have all bought it, never knowing what hit us" ... "We moved down
the slide, precisely like cartridges in an old style automatic pistol."

Paraphrased from Starship Troopers by Robt Heinlien.

The idea is for a battle dress equipped trooper to be transported to the
ground in a low-visibility, quick, and unpackaged a way as possible.  

The trooper climbs into her or his capsule and is strapped in six ways
from tuesday against the G forces of launch and decelleration.  The
capsule itself is made of an ablative material which will absorb the heat
of reentry as it passes through the atmosphere.  No brakes, no manuver
drive, just a big egg with a nasty suprise inside.

When launched on a ballistic trajectory (a difficult task for the pilot of
the troop transport) the capules are generally sent in at a relatively
high velocity, brake by friction with the atmosphere which is when the
many ablative aouter layers peel off like some bizarre onion, leaving an
inner non-ablative shield around the trooper.  Hopefully this occurs
*after* all necessary velocity has been bled off.  The inside of the
ablative fragments are treated so that they reflect radar energy.  This
has the effect of giving any ground controllers thousands of targets -
most of which are fragments - to waste ammo or time on.

When ready (or not) he trooper triggers the first of a series of
parachutes to break the inner capsule.  The first one lasts only a second
before detaching.  Then the trooper will break out of the capsule and use
the second parachute - again just for breaking - on the back of the BD.
Depending on how hot the LZ is they may use a third chute to float down or
use Grav or boot jets for final breaking - before they send their heels up
through their spine by landing the hard way.

In addition to the fragments of shell, the ship will generally launch a
number of "dummy" capsules after the troopers which, being lighter, hit
atmosphere earlier and fragment quite nicely.  Even more false targets.    

All this is recalled from Starship Troopers rather than CT, so take as you
will.

Pete

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 20:08:52 +0200
From: "Mark Seemann" <mark@dk-online.dk>
Subject: TLs of Imperiums I, II and III

7/4-97 Scott Ellsworth wrote:

> >According to Referee's Companion, p. 34:
> >Vilani:
> >- -5430  TL 11
> 
> >Second Imperium:
> >- -2210  TL 12
> 
> >Third Imperium:
> >1000  TL 15
> 
> >Hope this helps
> 
> Yes, indeed.
> 
> Could we please, then make very, very sure that _everyone_ writing
> supplements for the Traveller world knows this well.
> 
> I suspect many authors read the list, so please note - if you put a TL13+
> object in a RoM site, then you had best have a very good reason.  No TL14
> vac suits, and no TL 14 plasma guns need apply.

This was sort of my hidden agenda when quoting this source. One additional
comment might be in place here:

The author of the book Referee's Companion was Marc W. Miller. Makes you
think, doesn't it?

Mark Seemann
mark@dk-online.dk
http://www2.dk-online.dk/users/Mark_Seemann

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 12:14:57 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

I need some information for a series of questions brought up 
by one of my players regarding the state of computer technology
in the Imperium.

I thought I'd ask this list and get some comments before coming up
with an answer for him.

Here are his questions, along with my answers:
Do programmers do the same sorts of things as today? I'd say no. The 
programmers of the far future would tend to deal with concepts on
an abstract level. I'm thinking of an extension to the current idea
where people tend to program in very high level languages. Not many
people still write machine code or assembler.

What does the code look like? I'd say that the "code" is a series
of objects and relationships. Programming involves creating objects
and relationships through the use of pre-packaged modules and VR
interfaces.

Are data-nets (a la the Internet or the World Wide Web) common? Yes,
although the time lag between solar systems makes for data
synchronization issues.

What sorts of encryption and security are used? Generally one-way but
I'm not an expert in this topic.

Is VRML or true virtual reality common? Yes, most applications (at
TL13+) use VR interfaces.

Are there such things as mainframes anymore? What do they do? I think
that mainframes will always have a place. Besides, as the Imperium
expands, the frontier areas won't have the state of the art technology.
So you'll find mainframes in remote areas. You'll also see them in
workplaces requiring high levels of security.

What sorts of operating systems are there? None that we would 
recognize. Operating systems, as we know them, will operate without
much direct interaction with the user. Users will use complex VR 
interfaces to get things done.

What do starship-specific computers do? Are they specialized like 
auto-engine computers or general purpose? How much variation is there 
between ship computers? I suggest that starship computers are as 
simple as can be for the specific job they need to do. I think of a 
model/1 as basically a very large 286-based PC. That's all the 
horsepower needed to make jump calculations and run the ship's
functions. The advantage to having this simple technology is that
you can buy software/hardware for it throughout the Imperium,
without worrying about the tech level.

Any ideas you have are appreciated!

Erwin Fritz
Unix/NT/LAN Guy
Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 13:44:32 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: Fighters revisited

At 10:35 AM 4/8/97 -0600, Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@rt66.com> wrote:
>Snip<
>I think the Navy admits to something like 40 knots (any squids out
>there?).  Stories about "rushing to a liberty port" abound in
>sci.military.naval at some absurdly high speed.
>

Well the fastest nonhovercraft or nonhydrofoil US naval vessel, that I have
personal direct information/experience, is a current aircraft carrier.
Speed greater than 40 knots by more than a few knots. I served on a
Spuance(spelling?) class destroyer that was involved in a "race" with other
naval vessels in the Sea Of Okust(misspelled for sure) called the "Dakota
Dash" during the "Dakota Run". As to who won well there was some cheating
involved so the winner depends upon which side of the cheat you were on ie
winner or loser. My ship was exceeding 35 knots with all GT's on-line and
in "Battle Override" mode. The sight of rooster tail of water coming off
the stern was "most impressive" to say the least.


- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 19:16:51 +0000
From: brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

 > In B5 it is possible for a fighter-sized laser to penetrate the armor on a
 > big ship. In Traveller, it just isn't. A laser that fits into a "classical
 > fighter" (i.e. a one-man, on the order of 10disp tons), won't go through
 > meters of armor. All it'll do is scrape things off the hull IF it hits
 > something vital and unprotected. In B5, fighters also seem to have more
 > acceleration than big ships. In Traveller, not.

I don't know how much the new ship design sequence has changed 
things, but using FFS it was certainly possible to design a <10disp 
ton fighter with weapons which could penetrate an armour value of 
1200+, at least at TL14/15. Using Battle rider for approximate armour
values, it appears this laser could penetrate the armour of any ship 
apart from the Sylea. I'm not sure how well this translates to the 
new system, so the quote above may be more accurate. Still, if 750MJ 
lasers without grav focusing are still allowed, then fighters can 
damage even very large battleriders.
If anyone is interested, then I could repost the design, but it's TNE 
not T4.
- --
Brendan

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 12:14:50 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: Wither the Meson Gun?

>Why on earth (er, in space) would anyone use one of those 1,000Mj
>Meson guns? They end up with a USP rating of 1-0-0-0! That sucks!
>You'd be better off with lasers of any form. Grrrr.
>Also, some of QSDS military lasers have pretty wicked USP ratings,
>like 9-7-5-3 or somesuch. I find it pretty difficult to design as
>effective a weapon using SSDS.

This is basically true. For small weapons, at low TL, lasers really
beat meson guns, even in FFS/BL. Meson guns don't start to win until
targets are big and have enough armour that lasers can't do more than
scratch their surface.

QSDS/T4 ship combat exaggerates this effect, since armour can always be
wittled down (blech), and since multiple laser weapons sum to one big
laser battery - that means that even for big ships, lasers probably beat
meson guns until you run out of surface area for more laser turrets.

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 15:20:52 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: TL & the Darrians

      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk       wrote:

<<I can't come up with any scenario that allows a university to survive
yet destroys the knowledge it contains. Can you?>>

<Handwaving on>

Don't know which University survived but how about a massive EMP wave
followed by a massive heat pulse. That takes care of much of your on-line
capacity. The survivors of the University were on the dark side when the
heat wave hit, and the contribution they made came from their personal
knowledge and maybe some surviving notes...

<Handwaving off>



- --------------- Dom Mooney (dom@cybergoths.u-net.com)---------------
"The fall of Empire, Gentlemen, is a massive thing, however, and not easily
fought. It is dictated by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a
freezing of caste, a damming of curiousity - a hundred other factors."
                                 Hari Seldon - Azimov's "Foundation"

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 13:47:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Fighters Again (Long) And Pigeons

  The WWII pigeon bomb was actually an American idea, developed by the
well-known Dr. B. F. Skinner, of operant conditioning fame.  He trained
pigeons to peck at the center of a picture (aerial photo of a factory, let
us say).  In the bomb, the pigeon would peck at a little viewsceen that
showed a picture of the ground below transmited through lenses.  Since the
pigeon pecked at the center of the factory, if the image shifted off
center the pecking shifted off center and the guidance mechanism of the
bomb would correct course so the picture was in the center of the screen
again.

  The system was rather ingeneous, using simple feedback mechanisms to
keep things on course, and in the few trial runs the bomb worked rather
well.  The rejection of the system had more to do with the mindset of the
military officers involved rather than any love of pigeons - they just
thought the whole idea was silly and refused to fund it further.  Perfect
way to give a low-tech society precision-guided munitions.

  This was the second most interesting paper I ever heard at a Society for
the History of Technology conference (the most interesting was a
technological history of the vibrator, but that's another story), in part
because of audience participation.  The conference room for this paper had
a rather large window on one side, and outside was ledge.  Turns out it
was a major pigeon nesting site, and when Eric was delivering his paper
(and only while he was delivering his paper, I might add), the pigeons
swirled around outside and thumped against the galss.  Maybe they had
family members who worked for Skinner...

  I think Eric eventually published his paper - I'll have to see if I can
find you folks a reference.

______________________________
Dr. Mark Clark
Oregon Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 13:44:13 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

At LAST a post that has NOTHING to do with $#@#!@$ Fighters!!!

On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Erwin Fritz wrote:

> I need some information for a series of questions brought up 
> by one of my players regarding the state of computer technology
> in the Imperium.
> 
> I thought I'd ask this list and get some comments before coming up
> with an answer for him.
> 
> Here are his questions, along with my answers:
> Do programmers do the same sorts of things as today? I'd say no. The 
> programmers of the far future would tend to deal with concepts on
> an abstract level. I'm thinking of an extension to the current idea
> where people tend to program in very high level languages. Not many
> people still write machine code or assembler.

	I suspect there will be varying levels of abstraction...after all
SOMEone's gotta build those basic building blocks, but anyone other than
some very specialized people will be way above the hardware level. In
fact, more than likely, a lot of those basic building blocks WILL be
hardware. After all, what would be the fastest way to have a system run,
but put the 'compiler' in hardware.  Given that TL-12 and up computer
systems will probably be some sort of 3-d optical system (the higher
bandwith needed will almost certainly require optical light wavelengths)
and some really incredible complexity can be built into a system like
that, a lot of what we think of as 'software' will be hardware.

> What does the code look like? I'd say that the "code" is a series
> of objects and relationships. Programming involves creating objects
> and relationships through the use of pre-packaged modules and VR
> interfaces.

	I think so, the code may resemble something like the current
popular notion of VR interfaces, a la Johnny Memnonic, Lawnmower Man or
Disclosure. Notice I said something LIKE, not necessarily those. There are
prototype systems in use today, for instance that allow analysts to 'fly'
over a field of objects representing stocks, bonds, or other financial
instruments, with various variables affecting the shape, 'height', color
of them, so that very large arrays of data can be navigated rapidly and
accurately.
 
> Are data-nets (a la the Internet or the World Wide Web) common? Yes,
> although the time lag between solar systems makes for data
> synchronization issues.

	The T4 main rulebook already says this...basic worldwide wireless
data nets are an integral part of TL-12 technological society. This will
be a giant bummer if they find out that low level radio emissions DO cause
cancer and stuff :-/

> What sorts of encryption and security are used? Generally one-way but
> I'm not an expert in this topic.

	For ideas on stuff like this check out some of the stuff that's
been done on 'smart cards' and cashless societies. There are systems out
now that can conduct anonymous electronic transactions. I don't have the
references right in front of me right now, but a lot of work has been done
by some Dutch researchers. I read about it in various articles in American
Scientist and scientific American. I even visited their web site once, but
ost the bookmarks somehow.

> Is VRML or true virtual reality common? Yes, most applications (at
> TL13+) use VR interfaces.

	Almost certainly. As descendents of arboreal, fruit eating
primates, our senses of sight and touch are the most sensitive we have. An
interface that combines those two is going to be far more effective than
other ones, since it taps into reflexes that are pretty much genetically
fixed in us. Moreover, if neural interfaces become common these are the
only interface tools we'll have, except that aural cues will become more
common. In fact even now, people are starting to wake up to the importance
of aural information...there are experimental systems now that let you
'browse' large data sets as sounds. They have found that people using
these can attune themselves to incredibly small variations in the data by
distinguishing differences in the sound.  

> Are there such things as mainframes anymore? What do they do? I think
> that mainframes will always have a place. Besides, as the Imperium
> expands, the frontier areas won't have the state of the art technology.
> So you'll find mainframes in remote areas. You'll also see them in
> workplaces requiring high levels of security.

	I don't think that there will be a distinction, per se, between
'Mainframes' 'PC's' or whatever, but rather the amount of processing and
data storage will probably go up and down in scale...and a single
installation will be extremely difficult to tell from a distributed one.
For instance, right now, I can open up one folder on my desktop and be
looking at five or six different computers, with three different operating
systems, represented as folders of files I can work on...

	In an intensively networked environment, the distinction between
actual locations and virtual locations may become very separated.

	All of this detail really depends on how computers are used in
your campaign. Computers have always, to me, been an incredibly weak spot
throughout Traveller, along with cybernetics. Computers and datanets play
an incredibly vital role in a society like that of Milieu 0, but the
details on using, ( and mis-using) this technology is largely undetailed.
How does a VR cracker break into a high security site? How do you go about
finding out information on someone? Are there systems you can feed a
photograph into and ping out pops a list of likely people? Where is this
information kept, who can get to it. etc.

	Comparisons to cyberpunk genre games start creeping in here,
leading to the 64,000 Cr question...why ISN'T Traveller cyberpunkish?

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 16:54:15 -0400
From: James Garriss <jpg@langley.mitre.org>
Subject: Jane's Air Launched Weapons (was Re: Fighters - what ranges???)

At 02:13 AM 4/8/97 GMT, you wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Apr 1997 12:51:21 -0400, you wrote:
>> At 09:25 PM 4/4/97 GMT, James Lindsay wrote:
>> 
>> >Today's fighters can engage air targets at ranges of no more than
>> >100km (or so), while engaging surface targets at roughly half that
>> >distance.  

>> air-to-air missiles max range:              150km
>> air-to-surface missiles max range:          650km
>> air-to-surface cruise missiles max range:  3000km
>
>It appears my maximum AAM range was off due to the conversion between
>imperial and metric... the figure I saw must have been in miles.
>
>Would you mind sharing the type of ordnance for your second example?

Not at all.  Let's see, it looks like the edition of Jane's in my hand was
last updated in 1995.

>I did explicitly state "fighters" and not something that came out of
>the belly of a B-52 :)

True, but in my mind, there's no difference between a fighter and a bomber
of today when compared to a Traveller fighter.

Air-to-Air Missiles

The vast majority of these missiles have a range of 20km or less.  A few
get up to 50km.  Here are the ones that exceed 50km.

AA-9 Amos
 Guidance:        Radar
 Builder:         USSR
 Entered Service: 1983
 Launcher:        MiG-31 Foxhound
 Range:           100km

AIM-54 Phoenix
 Guidance:        Radar
 Builder:         USA
 Entered Service: 1974
 Launcher:        F-14 Tomcat
 Range:           150km

Air-to-Surface Missiles

These vary wildly.  I'll post a variety of interesting ones.

Apache
 Guidance:        Inertial (w/ GPS), Radar
 Builder:         France
 Entered Service: late 1980s
 Launcher:        Mirage 2000, Tornado (German Air Force),
                  Rafale, F-16 Falcon, F/A-18 Hornet,
                  Eurofighter 2000
 Range:           400-600km

Gabriel
 Guidance:        Inertial, Radar
 Builder:         Israel
 Entered Service: 1960s
 Launcher:        F-4 Phantom
 Range:           200km

AS-3 Kangaroo
 Guidance:        Inertial
 Builder:         USSR
 Entered Service: 1960s
 Launcher:        Tu-95 Bear
 Range:           650km

AS-4 Kitchen
 Guidance:        Inertial, Radar
 Builder:         USSR
 Entered Service: 1964
 Launcher:        Tu-22 Blinder, Tu-95 Bear, Tu-22M Backfire
 Range:           400km

AS-6 Kingfish
 Guidance:        Inertial, Radar
 Builder:         USSR
 Entered Service: early 1970s
 Launcher:        Tu-16 Badger, Tu-22M Backfire
 Range:           400km

AS-16 Kickback
 Guidance:        Inertial, Radar
 Builder:         USSR
 Entered Service: 1978
 Launcher:        Tu-95 Bear, Tu-160 Blackjack
 Range:           200km

AGM-69 SRAM
 Guidance:        Inertial
 Builder:         USA
 Entered Service: 1972
 Launcher:        B-52, FB-111, B-1B
 Range:           200km

AGM-86 ALCM
 Guidance:        Inertial (w/ GPS)
 Builder:         USA
 Entered Service: 1982
 Launcher:        B-52
 Range:           2500km

AGM-129 ACM
 Guidance:        Inertial
 Builder:         USA
 Entered Service: 1991
 Launcher:        B-52H, B-1B, B-2
 Range:           3000km

AGM-131 SRAM 2
 Guidance:        Inertial
 Builder:         USA
 Entered Service: expected 1996
 Launcher:        FB-111, B-1B, B-2, F-111E, F-15E, F-16
 Range:           400km 
 Note: expected design mod to increase range to 1000km (unconfirmed)

So if you're looking purely for fighters, then around 600km is max
(possibly 1000km).  If you're willing to include bombers, then 3000km.

>> Umm, the F23 was a prototype.  And one that was not chosen.  The F22 what
>> your were looking for?
>
>I guess I should learn to type with something other than my forehead
>:P

Ouch!  That's what I thought you meant.  I have a photograph (not a poster)
of the F-23 on it's maiden voyage.  I still can't believe they picked the
F-22.  In any case, the AF is having a roll-out ceremony for the F-22 soon.

 James Garriss                          System Engineer, MITRE               
 jpg@langley.mitre.org          http://www.cs.odu.edu/~garriss

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 97 19:19:44 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: [Traveller Answer] Materials Costs

On 04/06/97 at 09:52 PM,  Derek Wildstar <wildstar@qrc.com> said:

> Yes.  Greg developed his materials table for CSC after the FF&S numbers
> were built into the first version of QSDS and Starships.  Also note that
> the toughness numbers are different.  The formula for calculating the
> armor value based on thickness is different, too.

Yep, I've been butting my head on all these differences. ;->

> > So, officially, which is the errata?  Is CSC 10 times too
> > expensive, or are Starships and FFS in error?

> I'll let you know as soon as I know. 

Uh huh. 

> This is a question that's currently being resolved with Marc
> Miller and IG; in all likelyhood, T4 Deluxe will use the CSC
> numbers, resulting in a slight price increase for starships 

Slight?  ;-> Over 50,000 for a Rolen Politess, almost a million for a
200sdt Free Trader, and *millions* for bigger ships.  Seriously, the
difference is 90% of the internal sturcture/armor cost, and that's no small
potatoes...this might be the difference between profit and death for a
small trader.


> For the time being, please continue to use both CSC and QSDS/Starships as
> written - they're two separate systems, and don't generally mix well.   

You'd better shout that loudly.  Lot's of people are mixing and matching,
and the conversions aren't too bad...except for prices. 


Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 14:33:36 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Fighters revisted

At 11:58 PM 4/8/97 +1000, you wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Douglas E. Berry wrote:


>> It takes six weeks to train a Navy gunner.  It takes six years to produce a
>> fighter pilot.
>
>Thats when you have time to spare, in a major war 6 years is not the time
>it takes, not at all.  The major powers of ww2 turned out pilots over 
>about 2-4 month period.

During WWII the vast majority of fighters were piston-engine prop jobs with
fixed machine guns.  The only difficult thing was teaching landings.  A
modern pilot of a F-16C, or a F/A-18, needs to be able to operate the radar,
on board targeting systems, manage fuel supply, and stay alert in an
envoiroment that is far more deadly than than that faced by a combat pilot
in 1944.

Now project forward.. An Imperial fighter pilot will have to be skilled in
piloting his craft, running the sensors, and engaging the enemy in complete
isolation over a period of hours!

>> Huh?  The Luftwaffe was critically short of pilots from 1943 on.. after
>> about September '44, the skies belonged to the allies, because the few
>> remaining pilots were on bomber intercept duty.  The Japanese had to take
>> untrained cadets and strap them to flying bombs since they had run out of
>> instructors to teach dogfighting.  Most of the Kamikaze were making their
>> first solo pilots!  The Soviets would accept almost anyone for pilot
>> training, and since it meant getting away from the German Panzers, they
>> never ran short of volunteers.  Since the availible pilot pool was much
>> larger than the supply of aircraft, it left the impression of a larger air
>> force, but look at the actual number of planes flown... less than 1500
>> throught out the war.
>
>But the point is they had pilots, it was all relative, but they had
>pilots.  I never said they would be crack veteran crews.

Take a look at the loss rates for the Luftwaffe from mid-44 on..  You need
well trained pilots, or it's pointless.  Unless you have the Japanese
Kamikaze, most of the poorly trained fighter pilots are going to break and
run when the first couple of friendlies fireball.

>Im not familiar, but i would have to guess that the battleships came in
>within there gunning range, which is a death sentence to a lightly
>escorted or unescorted carrier.  Doing this defeats the purpose of the
>carrier.  If i was the captain of the Missouri and i knew i was going in
>against the Enterprise, whos location i dont know, id be worried.  Of
>course im sure someone will say they'd rather be in the Missouri, but
>thats life:)

Considering that the heaviest anti-ship weapon on board the Enterprise can't
do more than dent my waterline armor, I'll take the battlewagon.

>> >if you are not ready to die then you are not ready to live.
>> 
>> Aside: I love it when presumably healthy people make pithy statements about
>> death...
>
>Never assume.  Your assuming that death is related to health, which is not
>the case in this quote oh Duchovny Sniper.

Joke from another mailing list.

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   clown outfits.       -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1159
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest      Wednesday, April 9 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1160



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Miniatures
Re: Excellent SSDS Spreadsheet
Design and Tech
Re: Miniatures
Re: Fighters Again (Long) And Pigeons
Emperor's Arsenal USP Chart
Re: Subject: Fighters revisted
Re: Fighters revisted
t4 starship broken?
Jump Capsules
S.S.D.S.
Re: Wither the Meson Gun?
Re: Honest Review of Emperor's Arsenal (long)
Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters
Re: Design and Tech
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Re: Fighters Again (Long) And Pigeons
Re: Fighters revisted
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Re: Subject: Fighters revisted
Low-tech space fighters (4th ATTEMPT -- is this thing broken?)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 15:45:11 -0700
From: Mark Bradley <MBradley@gwgate.swrcb.ca.gov>
Subject: Miniatures

Does anyone know of a good source for Vargr figures?  I'm looking for
25mm paintable figures.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 10:36:52 +1200
From: Rupert Boleyn <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Excellent SSDS Spreadsheet

At 19:57 7/04/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>As far as jump capsules are concerned, they are from Classic Traveller,
>Striker Book 2. Thus they are non-standard, and your design may not be
>legal in a T4 tournament if you use them. Basically, jump capsules are
>armored pods that allow soldiers to perform combat drops into hostile
>territories from orbit. They have been canon in every version of Traveller,
>including T4 ( M0 talks about the Sylean capital being built pyramid shaped
>to repel Jump Troops ), but I believe Striker was the only system that
>provided rules for them.
>
The TNE Striker II also has rules for them, and the various TNE equipment
lists have the reentry pods and kits in them.

R. Boleyn

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 19:20:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Design and Tech

In a message dated 97-04-08 12:13:55 EDT, Anders writes:

>Actually, I don't think that the look of 1950s US cars was technologically
>motivated. 
According to Bruce Petters (Sex and the tail fin, 1985, some sort of strange
psych journal that I will get the ref from when I unpack) 1950's cars were
designed as sexual symbols, specificaly, phallic ones. Makes you look at the
fat trader in a whole new way.

To be as serious as I get ( not very), once technology is out of the lab,
it's design takes on a life of it's own. The market will decide what it looks
like, despite any logic of use, at least in the real of the general consumer.
Military contracts may be more strict as to "form follows function", but
general consumer goods will follow fads. 

Before the flames hit, think about it, why are jacks for your mouse and your
keyboard on the BACK of your computer? Why is ketchup, a highly viscous
condiment, served in narrow necked bottles? There was a brief attempt to sell
ketchup in wide mouth pots, but the public rejected it.

The point (<large cheer!> he may shut up!), is that once you know the minimum
dimensions of any piece of equiptment it's shape is entirely up to you and
your concept of the world that created it.


dsf

P.s. Many thanks to cberry for showing me how to spell "yada yada yada"

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 00:42:33 -0700
From: Neil Simpson <catwalk@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: Miniatures

Mark Bradley wrote:
> 
> Does anyone know of a good source for Vargr figures?  I'm looking for
> 25mm paintable figures.Get your hands on some of GZG`s K`hiff figuires,they are as near as damn it 
Vargr.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 16:42:32 -0800
From: "David P. Summers" <dsummers@mail.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Fighters Again (Long) And Pigeons

Tue, 8 Apr 1997 13:47:07 -0700 (PDT),  Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>

>  The WWII pigeon bomb was actually an American idea, developed by the
>well-known Dr. B. F. Skinner, of operant conditioning fame.  He trained
>pigeons to peck at the center of a picture
[deletions....]
The rejection of the system had more to do with the mindset of the
>military officers involved rather than any love of pigeons - they just
>thought the whole idea was silly and refused to fund it further.  Perfect
>way to give a low-tech society precision-guided munitions.

My understanding is that those evaluating the program were aware of
the atomic bomb (still secret at the time) and killed it because
they felt that the atomic bomb would mean that accuracy didn't
matter.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 18:49:52 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Emperor's Arsenal USP Chart

Gentle Beings,

In the EA on page 11 there is chart for converting Damage Ratings to USP
Ratings. I am trying to figure out the method in which the chart was made.
I have found the a file on Joe Hecks site [Traveller Answer] Armor Values.
But the T4 to USP is off in the [Traveller Answer] Armor Values a T4 value
of 16 equal to USP of 10, but in EA a damage rating of 16 equals 0-0-0-0.
What I am trying to do is convert some values I have for nukes warheads
into USP values. The values I want to convert are greater than the table in
EA. No I do not have Starships for the USP table that is in there. I will
maybe buy it after the "new and Improved" system get out.

Thanks
- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 20:56:00 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Subject: Fighters revisted

On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Anders Backman wrote:

> >During world war II the british could produce about 100 competent pilots
> >or so every two months, and they had scarce manpower.  Germans could do
> >even better.
> 
>  Are you saying that flying a spacefighter relying solely on sensor data is
> as easy as flying a WWII aircraft? Please don't give us some crap about
> expert systems, VR-augmentations et c. It is a historical fact that air
> superiority planes have gotten harder and harder to fly as time progresses.
> I'm not saying that they'll get infinitely hard in the future but I think
> you cannot take fior instance some farmboy on a desertplanet and drop him
> into a space fighter wothout at least a years training.

Luke would be offended! :) Im only comparing something i have knowledge of as
opposed to guessing what something may be like in 25 centuries from now.



c'ya hate to be ya,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when looked at
in the right way, did not become still more complicated.
			          			   -Poul Anderson.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 21:07:55 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Fighters revisted

On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, Andrew Vallance wrote:

> Here's an interesting thought. If Thrust plates emit a range of unusual
> particles (SSDS), why not build a missile with a guidance system which
> homes in on them? The traveller equivilent of a Sidewinder. If you switch
> off your thrusters you become a sitting duck. This gives the counter
> measure of thruster flares.

Thats what id be designing. Emmision guided missiles, maybe with an
inteligent detonator so if they do kill there thrusters it will retarget
or sit and wait.

Another possibility would be neutrino guided missiles that go for the
power plant (?)  These are the only two thing i could think of that would
be worth sticking on a fighter and possibly making them ;ship killers'

> As to operations around a planet, its a whole different coffee pot of
> herrings. Here the fighter does make sense. The ranges will be much closer,
> the big ship is deprived of it's range advantage, the fighter can hide by
> skooting down into the atmoshpere.. Here you need a carrier with your own
> fighters to deal with the planetry based fighters. Even a 2000Td destroyer
> is going to have to think very careful about following fighters down into an
> atmosphere.

Very true, then you would be looking at the big advantage a fighter would
have over a battleship (horizon, manvrability etc).

> 


c'ya hate to be ya,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when looked at
in the right way, did not become still more complicated.
			          			   -Poul Anderson.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 21:13:50 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: t4 starship broken?

Is there a fix for the broken design in t4?


c'ya hate to be ya,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when looked at
in the right way, did not become still more complicated.
			          			   -Poul Anderson.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 19:35:52 -0600 (CST)
From: Jeff Brawley <brawleyj@UWSTOUT.EDU>
Subject: Jump Capsules

>The idea is for a battle dress equipped trooper to be transported to the
>ground in a low-visibility, quick, and unpackaged a way as possible.  
>
>The trooper climbs into her or his capsule and is strapped in six ways
>from tuesday against the G forces of launch and decelleration.  The
>capsule itself is made of an ablative material which will absorb the heat
>of reentry as it passes through the atmosphere.  No brakes, no manuver
>drive, just a big egg with a nasty suprise inside.
[snipped]
>When ready (or not) he trooper triggers the first of a series of
>parachutes to break the inner capsule.  The first one lasts only a second
>before detaching.  Then the trooper will break out of the capsule and use
>the second parachute - again just for breaking - on the back of the BD.
>Depending on how hot the LZ is they may use a third chute to float down or
>use Grav or boot jets for final breaking - before they send their heels up
>through their spine by landing the hard way.
>
>In addition to the fragments of shell, the ship will generally launch a
>number of "dummy" capsules after the troopers which, being lighter, hit
>atmosphere earlier and fragment quite nicely.  Even more false targets.    
>
>All this is recalled from Starship Troopers rather than CT, so take as you
>will.

In T:TNE there are drop capsules used by the RCMC that fit this model almost
exactly.  The only difference is that they are given a micro-flight computer
similar to those on Grav Belts with a thruster pack for re-entry.  These are
launched out of a dispenser similar to Heinalins (sp).  After re-entry
troopers either use a parachute or a Grav belt depending on the world of origin.

They come in basically four variations: Mk. I, IIa, IIb, IIc
        I is for troopers,
       IIa is for decoys
       IIb is for deadfall ordanance or missiles
       IIc is for material (ammo, food, gear etc.)

Each pod costs ~350kCr and is .5 Td
They weigh between 8 and 18 tonnes, are AV 10, .75G with 4 min fuel
Pods are equipped with 5 decoys of IR, Laser, and EM (each, 15 total)
and a .04 MW battery 

They are unfortunately (duh) non-reusable.

later,
Jeff Brawley

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 20:55:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: "John P. Raynor" <john.raynor@yale.edu>
Subject: S.S.D.S.

Is the Standard Starship Design System available electronically
in any formats other than Adobe Acrobat?  Is there, for example,
a plain text edition?
                                                    - J. Raynor

------------------------------

Date: 09 Apr 97 10:29:11 +0000
From: James.Dempsey@hr-m.b-m.defence.gov.au
Subject: Re: Wither the Meson Gun?

- --smxr-97040910413430766
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

Hello Ethan,
     
> Why on earth (er, in space) would anyone use one of those 1,000Mj 
> Meson guns? They end up with a USP rating of 1-0-0-0! That sucks! 
> You'd be better off with lasers of any form. Grrrr.
     
        They really do look pretty shabby.
     
> Also, some of QSDS military lasers have pretty wicked USP ratings, 
> like 9-7-5-3 or somesuch. I find it pretty difficult to design as 
> effective a weapon using SSDS.
     
        Perhaps what we need to do is to try and duplicate the QSDS lasers 
in SSDS. All of the QSDS components should really be available in SSDS.
     
> Also, is there a list of SSDS errata around and where's that way-cool 
> SSDS spreadsheet someone mentioned a few digests back?
     
        Yes, have a look at 
http://www.spirit.net.au/_jamesd/Trav/SSDS/Errata.html, but remember that 
there is a tilde character before the jamesd, rather than whatever junk 
this mail system has supplied. That has all of the errata I could find for 
SSDS. My own speculation on crew sizes hasn't been put in though, as I 
haven't really gotten a solid answer other than 'Yep, they are different.'
     
Bye,
James Dempsey
jamesd@spirit.com.au (home)
james.dempsey@hr-m.b-m.defence.gov.au (work)

- --smxr-97040910413430766
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit


- --smxr-97040910413430766--

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 18:30:52 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Honest Review of Emperor's Arsenal (long)

> Somebody pour a bucket of ice water over this guy.
> 
> Sounds like Ken's been "born again" :)

Yes, I do come off a bit strong.  It's just that we have no problem 
tearing IG a new hole when they do something wrong.

If think that if they do something right, then we should be just as 
passionate about telling everyone about it.

Too many times, people focus on the negatives and forget about the 
positives.

In my book, the EA is just incredible.  They did a wonderful job on 
it, and I want everyone to know it.  

I sure hope IG continues this trend.  Besides, it was damn refreshing 
to buy a T4 product and really, really like it.

What can I say?  I was pleasntly surprised, and I'm excited about it.

Kenneth.
> 
> 

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 18:34:01 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

At 10:48 pm 04/06/97 -0500, you wrote:
>At 04:55 PM 4/6/97 -0600, goldendj@mail.pcisys.net wrote:
>>	The range deviation isn't necessarily that big of a deal. What I care
>>about is the angular deviation. Draw a line from where I am to my aiming
>>point. As long as the target is actually on that line, who cares if he's
>>300m closer or further away.
>>
>
>yes more properly stated angular deviation would have effect. Well lets try
>an example of the my point:

	If my fire control system is too stupid to realize the angular deviations
caused by the different positions of my sensors and my weapons on a
non-point-sized hull, I shouldn't be in space in the first place.

>Ok but in another post you said the closing time would be 60 minutes 23 secs?

	That's because the first post went out before my mind fully engaged.

>But what if deploy warheadsat 3,000km or even 300km. With a armor value of
>CSC >50 it will shrug off any hits if you get any remember the agility DM
>is -25 to be hit. 

	Wait to deploy until 3,000km and your very expensive missile is dead.
Assuming, of course, I've ignored a thrusting target for over an hour.
Tactics that work against mind-dead vegetables don't fare very well against
anybody else. 

	As for CSC agility DM, Greg himself acknowledges his VEHICLE system
doesn't work for space combat, and was never intended to. Go back and pull
of some of the posts on the actual chances of hitting an object at various
ranges (by Merrick, I believe). 
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 13:23:47 +1200
From: Rupert Boleyn <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Design and Tech

At 19:20 8/04/97 -0400, you wrote:

>To be as serious as I get ( not very), once technology is out of the lab,
>it's design takes on a life of it's own. The market will decide what it looks
>like, despite any logic of use, at least in the real of the general consumer.
>Military contracts may be more strict as to "form follows function", but
>general consumer goods will follow fads. 

Actually military equipment follows fashions just as much as any other, in
both aesthetics and philosophy. Take a look at the M16, and the Styer AUG -
both have styling that has nothing to do with their function (though the
basic underlying shape does). The US Army was sold on the M16 because it
looked sexy as much as anything else.

This applies to major hardware as well, and a good number of perfectly good
aircraft and ship designs were never produced because those doing the paying
thought they were ugly.

R. Boleyn

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 19:35:02 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

Bruce Johnson wrote:
> 
> but put the 'compiler' in hardware.  Given that TL-12 and up computer
> systems will probably be some sort of 3-d optical system (the higher
> bandwith needed will almost certainly require optical light wavelengths)
> and some really incredible complexity can be built into a system like
> that, a lot of what we think of as 'software' will be hardware.
> 

I like it! I knew it was a good idea to post these questions to the
list.

>         The T4 main rulebook already says this...basic worldwide wireless
> data nets are an integral part of TL-12 technological society. This will
> be a giant bummer if they find out that low level radio emissions DO cause
> cancer and stuff :-/
> 

On the other hand, you could use optical lasers for messaging over
short distances. This is both more secure and less prone to
noise than omnidirectional transmission.

> common. In fact even now, people are starting to wake up to the importance
> of aural information...there are experimental systems now that let you
> 'browse' large data sets as sounds. They have found that people using
> these can attune themselves to incredibly small variations in the data by
> distinguishing differences in the sound.
> 

Another great idea!


- -- 
Erwin Fritz
Unix/NT/LAN Guy
Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd.
http://www.glja.com

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 18:15:33 -0800
From: kenji@accessone.com (Kenji Schwarz)
Subject: Re: Fighters Again (Long) And Pigeons

Mark Clark wrote:

>  This was the second most interesting paper I ever heard at a Society for
>the History of Technology conference (the most interesting was a
>technological history of the vibrator, but that's another story), in part
>because of audience participation.

Right, Dr. Clark, you have a duty to educate:  tell us the other story! <EG>

Kenji Schwarz
kenji@accessone.com

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 22:28:08 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: Fighters revisted

Douglas E. Berry wrote:

>Now project forward.. An Imperial fighter pilot will have to be skilled in
>piloting his craft, running the sensors, and engaging the enemy in complete
>isolation over a period of hours!

   Actually he would be in radio/maser contact with his wingman...err
wingperson and of course his squadron commander and probably the other
members of his squadron.  You're right though--the cockpit of an
Imperial fighter is probably going to be more complex in some ways than
a modern day aircraft.  On the other hand, it will also be easier to
operate.  Holographic displays, automated systems, voice activation,
etc. will lessen the burden on the pilot.  Assuming the Imperium shuns
such advances already on the horizon on TL 8 Earth, there is always
another solution: crew your fighters with two people instead of one or
three instead of two.

>Take a look at the loss rates for the Luftwaffe from mid-44 on..  You need
>well trained pilots, or it's pointless.  Unless you have the Japanese
>Kamikaze, most of the poorly trained fighter pilots are going to break and
>run when the first couple of friendlies fireball.

   In the early grim days on the Russian front, Soviet pilots would ram
their fighters into German bombers in order to stop them.  Eventually
the Soviets figured out how to clip the tail or wing of German bombers
and leave their own aircraft intact enough to bail out (one obsolete
fighter for one modern bomber plus crew--result the Soviets win the
exchange).  Point is that the Soviet Air Force stunk up the air in '41. 
They got better as the war progressed, in constrast to the Japanese
naval air and other air forces which got worse as the war progressed.

   You need well trained pilots to act as a cadre for training the new
recruit pilots as they enter the air.  The Americans and Soviets had the
luxury of numbers which allowed them to send their best pilots to the
rear where they could act as instructors.  Not having to relearn from
the same mistakes and getting the straight crap on what the enemy's
fighters can and can't do (and what your own fighters can and can't do
versus what some manual says) saves lives and many hours of additional
training.

>>If i was the captain of the Missouri and i knew i was going in
>>against the Enterprise, whos location i dont know, id be worried.  Of
>>course im sure someone will say they'd rather be in the Missouri, but
>>thats life:)
>
>Considering that the heaviest anti-ship weapon on board the Enterprise can't
>do more than dent my waterline armor, I'll take the battlewagon.

   In general, battleships ruled the night in WW II and carriers ruled
the day.  A carrier alone at night were a sitting duck (which is why
they had crusiers, destroyers and even battleships as escorts), just as
a battleship alone during the day is a sitting duck (which is why
battleships stopped going anywhere without air cover--at least the ones
that survived the war anyway).  The two complimented each other which is
why the Americans combined them in use.  

   As for waterline armor, the Enterprise (of WW II fame) couldn't even
give the Missouri a bad hair day.  Its guns are defensive only.  A
flight of dive bombers from the Enterprise on the other hand could send
the Missouri down *quickly*.  waterline armor does nothing to protect
deck, which is where the dive bombers' ordinance would be penetrating. 
Aircraft represent the entirety of the offense capability of a carrier. 
Neutralize them during WW II (whether on account of darkness or because
the flight deck is non-functional) and a carrier can do little but bend
over and take it.

   Modern aircraft carriers can operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,
in any weather that naval combat can be attempted.  Because they have
overcome the major limiting factor on their operations (darkness), they
have made battleships obsolete.  If we project things into space,
carriers must be able to carry a number of fighters capable of disabling
or destroying enemy capital vessels, whether by penetrating the enemy
capital vessel's hull or by saturating it with fire to the point that
all of the enemy capital vessel's sensors and commo antennas are
disabled (rendering said vessel as good as dead).  If fighters are
incapable of this, carriers are obsolete for purposes of space combat. 
While they would make excellent mobile bases for ground support
fighter/bomber operations, and good in-system scouting operations
centers, you wouldn't see them In Harm's Way (John Wayne movie).

Regards,

Harold

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 23:36:23 -0400
From: Bill Rutherford <worj@topgun.cinecom.com>
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

At 08:14 AM 4/8/97 EST, Anders wrote:
 
<Snip>
>>...As far as the look, you are right--MO has a feel of its own, and that
>>feel is implausible.  The problem is that, eventhough MO is 1000
>>years in CT's past, it is also over 4000 years in the future of the
>>1950 AD era.   Arms in the year 0 should be much more advanced than
>>conceptual designs from Terra's 1950's.
>
>Actually, I don't think that the look of 1950s US cars was technologically
>motivated. Therefore M0 vehicles etc does not hve to look futuristic...
<Snip...>

Remember the movie "Dune"?  Completely aside from its other
qualities/failings, I thought the polished brass-and-oak decor was neat!  It
said clearly that it was hi-tech enough that it didn't even have to LOOK
hi-tech!  (Aesthetic) form wasn't required to follow function.  

- ---------------
Bill Rutherford
worj@topgun.cinecom.com

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 23:36:28 -0400
From: Bill Rutherford <worj@topgun.cinecom.com>
Subject: Re: Subject: Fighters revisted

At 08:33 AM 4/8/97 EST, Anders wrote:
 
><Snip...>...Are you saying that flying a spacefighter relying solely on
sensor data is
>as easy as flying a WWII aircraft? Please don't give us some crap about
>expert systems, VR-augmentations et c. It is a historical fact that air
>superiority planes have gotten harder and harder to fly as time progresses.
>I'm not saying that they'll get infinitely hard in the future but I think
>you cannot take fior instance some farmboy on a desertplanet and drop him
>into a space fighter wothout at least a years training.

As this is all taking place FAR into the future, what changes would there
likely be in training methods?  You're right that air super. a/c have got
harder to fly - but our entire learning curve is based on only 85 years'
experience!  What'll happen over the next several score centuries?

- ---------------
Bill Rutherford
worj@topgun.cinecom.com

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 20:59:47 -0700
From: Grandfather <jaystr@best.com>
Subject: Low-tech space fighters (4th ATTEMPT -- is this thing broken?)

Back in CT days, the advantage of the fighter was blatantly obvious --
100 10-ton fighters have 100 hard points, the same as a 10,000 ton
warship. Unless you had lots of independant little batteries to throw up
a wall of AA, you'd get pecked to death from surface damage. This is
obviously no longer the case; if the weapon fits, you can carry it...
but I still think there's a role for the fighter that no one has
considered.

Nevermind cost-effectiveness, or 'scrubbing' versus taking ships out in
one shot via spinal mount, or differing fleet tactics, or the chances of
a surface hit turning into an internal explosion (the golden BB rule),
or the manifest superiority of fighters for close support of ground
forces. I'll leave all that to the rabid Trav-gurus and the tournament
junkies. What about if your enemy simply outranks you in the tech
department?

My planned campaign has relatively low-tech Terran colonists (TL10; i.e.
tech in the realm of the foreseeable future) versus nasty aliens that
are considerably more advanced than they are (TL15). The aliens have
some kind of fiendish weapon that reproduces the effect of a particle
accelerator WITHIN the target area (read: meson guns). This is unhealthy
for big expensive capital ships, as the humans find out in their first
pitched battle. Warships blowing up from the inside out. Catastrophic
collapse in morale. Tax dollars down the drain. Humanity is doomed...

...or would be if it weren't for the surviving carriers, who were away
on patrol when the BEMs launched their interplanetary Pearl Harbour on
an unsuspecting humanity. You see, fighters are agile enough to make the
enemy miss more often. You have a harder time blowing up lots of little
dudes than one big one with your miraculous ray gun. And best of all,
most meson weapons (with the obvious exception of the monster-sized
spinal mounts) are intermediate-range weapons -- fighters can be
launched at longer ranges than the alien's nightmare weapon can reach.

A couple of years into the conflict, and the humans are still getting
their asses whipped, several inhabited systems are toast, the taxpayers
are still loudly annoyed at what it costs to fight a prolonged
interstellar action... but it is no longer an unequal battle. Because
those annoying humies are deploying a truly mindboggling array of sensor
drones, cruise missiles (robot kamikaze planes as large as a small
conventional fighter), reflex pods (small robotic fighters carried by
larger interceptors that are slaved to the fighter's own sensors & fire
control and can be sicced on threatening targets -- think of a reusable
Phoenix missile that can shoot back instead of just blowing up once),
and other nasty goodies designed to be deployed (key disclaimer here) AT
RANGE. 

With these and other force-multiplying 'semi-automated' accessories,
every fighter is itself an aircraft carrier in miniature, cutting down
on losses of valuable personnel. Every ship is first and foremost a
(small, fast) fighter carrier, with some secondary function designed
into it. They are escorted by missile boats (another standoff weapon),
and launch a plethora of specialized fighter types. And the individual
fighter jock (read: PC) is a verrrry important person. Good roleplaying
possibilities -- which is why I dreamed up this scenario to begin with.

The key point here is that -- for a low-stellar civilization fighting a
high-stellar one -- I couldn't think of a single viable military or
economic alternative BESIDES the fighter. They're cheap, easy to repair
or replace, fast, relatively hard to hit, and offer tremendous
flexibility. The more you put out there, the more their sheer numbers
offer protection to each other and saturate the enemy's defenses. A
fighter wing offers a battleships's firepower, but with the ability to
zoom around from spot to spot and target its 'batteries' on different
enemy craft according to the needs of the moment, and you can't get
lucky and take them all out. (It does not, of course, offer the
mandatory gigantic spinal mount, nor a BB's station-keeping
capabilities). You wage war at range and are insulated from catastrophe
and try to keep your big expensive ships back out of the way. For the
desperate low-tech combatant, these are musts.

What do they look like? Because our low-tech fighters are... well... so
low-tech, and have to carry all of the toys that make them so effective,
they start at around 30 tons and go up to 150 or so. They employ a
binary drive system of HEPLAR and conventional CG powered by Fusion+,
giving you double-redundancy against crippling shots (within a gravity
well, anyway) and good fuel-efficiency within a gravity well (again,
only within a gravity well). There would also be a smattering of older
nuclear-powered interceptors propelled by fusion rockets (why are these
bloody things so bloody expensive?!?). Planetary interceptors would be
small, missile-armed, and have very limited burn time on all that bulky
fuel to conserve on displacement, so you could build enough of them to
make a difference -- we're talking Soviet-style air defence here, folks.
Burn out there as fast as you can, launch your spread of missiles, and
run back home to refuel and rearm.

Also, since experienced fighter jockeys are valuable and hardware
relatively cheap by comparison, each fighter will have an honest-to-God
ejection pod -- a very small subordinate craft with full life support
and limited burn time for a teeny little HEPLAR drive; just enough for
you to scoot back to your own side. You can also carry the electronics
and active sensors in the 'pod, thereby preserving the most expensive
portion of the hardware.

To compliment the swarms of fighters with the necessary firepower to
pierce a battleships's thick hide, however, you need a big spinal mount
- -- but without the rest of the battleship wrapped around it, and
preferably as fast as a fighter itself. Viola! the Fleet Self-Propelled
Gun, or FSPG. Ideally, it is a battlerider of not greater than a couple
of thousand tons displacement, consisting of a mammoth manuver
drive/power section and a crew pod hanging off the ass-end of the
biggest NPAW you can put out there, along with a few point-defense
systems, and not much else. Think of it as spaceborne field artillery.

Lessee, now... you can shoot at all those missiles coming in, or all
those fighters shooting at you, or the nasty FSPG's operating in
wolfpacks of two or three all beating up on the same target, or all the
little self-propelled laser batteries, or all the sensor drones that are
collecting the information necessary for everybody to shoot at you...
but ah... lessee.... even presuming equivelant tonnage in
technologically superior capital ships, this is starting to look like
kind of a dicey proposition. How many goddam targets can YOU shoot at?
The same principles hold true even if you are average stellar tech and
you are fighting the TL20+ bad guys from Babylon 5.

Even after you figure out the mysteries of the meson for yourself,
you're not liable to change your force structure overnight. It just
makes your fighters and all your assorted toys that much nastier. Your
100-ton missile bombers sprout meson guns, your interceptors can carry
half a dozen robot drones instead of a pair, your FSPG's come in
meson-flavored varieties, and the war goes on. A low-tech species that
clawed its way up the military ladder would probably look very much like
what I've just described. The cult of the fighter jock would have been
thoroughly seared into their military culture. Barring catastrophic
setbacks, it'd probably stay that way. Races at peace during their
stellar development would continue to build big bulky ships even after
improved technology made it possible to build them smaller.

I'd like to see fleet actions where whole task forces can have their
ships become components in a single massive sensor array; I understand
the US Navy is working on just such a system, so this is clearly in the
extrapolative technology (not the bullshittium) realm. And a simple
minus based on tonnage to non-nuclear, non-meson damage rolls for large
ships would reflect their robust construction and superior damage
control capabilities. This is all necessary and desirable.

But don't be too quick to write off the fighter as a terribly useful
component on a well-balanced fleet (anybody ever try to build a "battle
carrier" -- a battlecruiser with the speed and subordinate armament of
its class, but converting the NPAW tunnel into a launch tube for oodles
of fighters and doing away with the spinal mount altogether?). And you
cannot deny that a low-tech dreadnaught (not necessarily less capable
than its High Stellar counterpart, but far bulkier and more expensive)
going up against a meson-equipped warship of ANY size is nothing but a
pathetic joke. You go the Luke Skywalker route or you die en masse,
entombed in a massive hull whose value as protection is suddenly
outweighed by its size as a target.

So long as supposedly sentient creatures settle their differences by
violence, wherever radical gaps in technology exist between bellicose
neighbors (look at 20th century Earth!) -- there is the fighter, your
only ally and salvation. Whoever would defend himself from supratech
aggression must put his money on these unassuming little manned
missiles. 

- -- Jay Stranahan

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1160
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest      Wednesday, April 9 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1161



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

SSDS Spreadsheet
Pigeon Power!
Re: G onset rate
Nathan Bedford Forrest
Honest Review of the T4 Referee's Screen (long)
Re: Subject: Fighters revisted
Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters
[Emperor's Arsenal Errata Found]
G Onset rate

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 11:16:53 -0500
From: "Andrew Akins" <igor@netins.net>
Subject: SSDS Spreadsheet

A few people have emailed the list and/or myself wanting to find out how to
get my SSDS spreadsheet. It can be found on my Traveller web page, the
setting section, under Spacecraft and Starships. The actual URL is:

http://www.netins.net/showcase/theakins/andy/trav/commun/starship.htm

Enjoy, and let me know what you think...

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Andrew Akins                                                       |
| Home: igor@netins.net - http://www.netins.net/showcase/theakins/   |
| Work: andya@cms-gt.com - http://www.cms-gt.com/                    |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| May your villages remain ignorant of tax collectors, and may your  |
| sons be many and ugly and strong and willing workers, and may your |
| daughters be few and beautiful and excellent providers of love     |
| gifts from eminent families that live very far away, and may your  |
| lives be blessed by the beauty that has touched mine.              |
|                    - Number Ten Ox, "Bridge of Birds"              |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 97 20:59:37 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Pigeon Power!

On 04/09/97 at 02:51 AM,  Andrew Vallance <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
said:

> Incidently the during the 2nd WW the British developed a very effective
> system of missile guidance based around trained pidgens, capable of
> taking individual bridge supports over 1,000km. It was never deployed.
> Apparently the British high command was heavy in bird fanciers, and as
> the pidgen died, they considered it to be just not good form. The worlds
> first (and only) PGM (Pidgen Guided Munition).

Hey! Did the British do that too?  In the states they trained pidgeons to
guide glide bombs to their targets.  I think it was, the bahaviorist, BF
Skinner's project.  I don't know if the project went past lab testing, but
from what I've heard it would have worked very well.  Well except for the
poor bird. ;->

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 97 20:49:34 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: G onset rate

On 04/08/97 at 02:01 PM,  anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman) said:

> >Explain this G onset rate, it is not mentioned in the rules.

> It's the rate of rate of change and more or less unimportant in
> Traveller. People tend to do analogies with bodern day stuff like
> fighterplane engines which doesn't hold in Traveller. The time going from
> idle to full throttle in a fighter has to do with the time to spin up the
> turbine. In Traveller you flip a switch and you get full thrust right
> away.

Anders, it doesn't *have* to be that way.  Thrusters *could* need a warm up
period, before they go online, or ramp up from 0 thrust to full thrust over
a period of time. This could be an interesting limitation to stick
thrusters with..powerful and don't need reaction mass, but expensive and
takes time to power up.

"Helm take us out of here, full thrust!"

"Sorry Captain, but the Chief reports the thrusters won't be up to power
for another 4 minutes."

"Damn it! Didn't I order her to keep them HOT?"


Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 97 20:32:26 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Nathan Bedford Forrest

> Nathan Bedford Forrest, and the orignal quote was: "Be there first, with the
> most men."  How it got corrupted into that thing is a mystery.

General NB Forrest was a country boy (actually a crafty self-promoter who
had gotten rich trading in anything, anybody would buy, including slaves).
He enlisted as a private in the southern forces and rose through the ranks
to Lt General by the end of American Civil War.  Ok, he paid for his
commission, but it was his merit that got him from Lt Coronel to General.
<g>

Forrest was protrayed by the press as a country rube, the "the barefoot
general." I'd guess "Get there first-est with the most-est." was some
journalist's interpertation of what Forrest said. <G> OTOH, Forrest was
said to have played up his country-boy image so he might have said it that
way himself...with a wink and a grin.  

After the war, he lost his fortune during reconstruction, but soon made
another by...um, questionable means.  He was supposedly the first Grand
Wizard of the KKK, but quit when it's activities escalated from speeches
and cross burnings to shootings and house burnings...or so said my
Grandfather. <G>


Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 22:03:52 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Honest Review of the T4 Referee's Screen (long)

Continuing my reviews of all the T4 products, here's my take on the 
new Referee's Screen.

In short, if you liked the screen DGP put out for MegaTraveller (and 
I did), then you'll like this one.

Overall, I'd give it a 3 out of a possible 5 if I had to rate it 
against the other products, but if you are the type of GM, like me, 
who uses a screen, then this is a good buy.

Speaking of "buy", the screen costs $12.95, and I got it at my local 
game store.  The fact that it was available locally came as a 
pleasant surprise to me, because when I first heard tell of the 
screen, I was under the understanding that it was only available 
through IG Internet ordering program.  

I don't like putting my credit card up on the net (I just haven't 
been convinced that it is safe yet), so I much prefer being able to 
buy it at my local store.

In fact, I told myself that if I had to get it over the net, then I 
wouldn't get it.  I didn't need it that much.

But, on to the review...

One of the best things that the screen has got going for it is that 
it is packed with info.  There's three seperate pieces to the 
screen--the screen itself, the adventure, and the cover to the whole 
package.


The Cover:

This is a thin piece of paper that wraps around the 
cardboard-like screen (the adventure is on regular papet, 
stapled, and inside the the screen). 

 When I opened the 
package, I was surprised to see that even the cover was used 
for game purposes too.  I sure didn't expect this because, on the 
outside, it looks like a throw-away cover.

On one side of this cover is the actual "cover" to the package.  It 
features one of the Foss pics that is in the T4 main book, and 
normally I would be dogging that because I don't like a lot of the 
Foss art (in a Traveller context).

But, good news...this is actually one of the Foss pics that I think 
is very Traveller.  As a matter of fact, if you have read the short 
story I wrote and posted here on the TML some months back called 
"Instant Replay", I can picture this pic as the scene where the 
escape pod blasts its way out of the OSIRIS asteroid mining base just 
before the reactor blows taking the whole asteroid with it.

Given this, and the fact that I really like this one Foss pic, it was 
a good choice for the cover of the Ref's screen.

The back "cover" of this sheet has your typical sales info tatalizing 
the reader to buy the product.  I have no problem with this, and this 
is something that you see on just about every game package from every 
RPG game company.  It's the stuff you read when you are deciding to 
buy it or not.

Inside the "cover" is where a treat lies.  As I 
said, I expected this sheet to serve a just a cover.  Marc should be 
commended for thinking of using this space for game stuff.

What you get on the inside of this cover is information for the 
adventure that comes with the game.  On one side, you get 8 of the 
new "NPC" cards.  6 of these have NPC info on them for the included 
adventure, but 2 of these are blank.  You can photocopy them if you 
want to use the card format for other NPC's in your game.

On the opposite side of these cards is a map and planet info for the 
adventure.  This is M0 player's information, and what that means is 
that the map and planet UPP's are incomplete;  you see a lot of 
blanks.

Normally, I'd be dogging this too, because I don't like those 
incomplete maps that are being used in M0 supplements like First 
Survey.  I'm a ref, and I want complete maps.  I can easily take a 
blank sector map and detail/limit the info I give to my players.

But, I'm not dogging it here because, from looking at the adventure, 
having it this way is pertinent to the adventure.  A quick scan of 
the adventure reveals that the PC's are searching for something, and 
this type of limited info map is more appropriate here than it ever 
has been in the other M0 products.

Am I changing my mind about these limited info maps?  Heck, no!  It 
is just that I mind it less here than I do in some of the other M0 
products.



The Screen:

The screen itself is printed on a thick, card-board type stock and 
has four double-sided panels.  Although the screen is thick, it is 
not as thick (and durable) as I'd like it to be.  I've compared it to 
the old DGP screen, and it is about the same thickness as that one 
was.  On first glance, I'd like the screen to be a little more 
sturdy--maybe as thick as the old D&d screens used to be, but upon 
examination of my DGP screen, it has held up pretty good over the 
years (and I've had it since 1989 when it was first published).

Given this, I think the new T4 screen will hold up well if you take 
care of it, don't bend it, and don't get it wet.

The player's side of the screen has some basic, generic information, 
and on some of the four panels, this information is sparse.

On player panel #1, the skill list is printed.  Cluster and Cascade 
skills are listed in bold, and all of the Default skills are marked 
for easy reference.  The skills list is like the one in the main 
book, although a better job has been done in marking Cluster, 
Cascade, and Default skills.  At the end of the list, there is 
another table, like the one in Book 1, listing the Cascade skills for 
Aircraft, Blade Combat, and Gun Combat skill groupings.

Also on this panel are three tables for computers.  You get the 
Computer Ratings table, the Program Difficulties table, and the 
Processing Times table.

Below that is a table that I consider a real treat because I haven't 
seen it listed in any of the other T4 products yet, and I was 
wondering when they were going to get around to including it 
somewhere.

What I'm talking about is the Master Range table.  The one in Book 1, 
for combat, ends with Very Long.  On this master table, this is only 
one-third the way down the table.

This table starts with Contact range at 0 meters and ends with Sector 
range at 50 Pc.

Panel #2 sports an example of the UPP for characters.  I've been 
playing Traveller for some 14 years now, and I still have to look up 
which digit of the UPP is End.  I'm glad this is here for easy 
reference.

There's also three tables here.  One has the one-line definitions of 
the Primary Characteristics (Str, Dex, etc.).  Another is a table of 
Hexadecimal Numbers, and I'm glad this is here.  When we start 
getting into the letters, I always have to start counting fingers.  
What did "E" stand for again?  (looking at the table) Oh yeah, it's 
14.

The third table is the Noble Ranks table giving the letter codes and 
Rank/Title for each code.  It starts with Soc of B (Knight) and ends 
with Soc of H (Emperor).

Moving along to player panel #3, we get the UWP explanation.  As has 
already been mentioned here on the TML, this also includes the new 
additions to the UWP that we are supposed to be learning about in an 
upcoming T4 product.  I'm referring to the Resources, Labor, 
Infrastructure, and Culture codes in the UWP, and I'm glad Marc put 
these in for completeness sake.

Looking back at my old DGP screen, I noticed the section that I 
referred to most was the UWP example.  I never can remember if 
Population goes before Government or what the 5th digit in the UWP 
referrs to.

I am really glad the UWP example was included on the T4 screen, but I 
do have a big critisim here.  The old DGP screen listed tables that 
told you what all the codes meant.  For example, what's a Government 
code B mean?  Looking at my DGP screen, I can easily see that this 
means the planet is ruled by a Non-Charismatic Leader.

I'm sorry to say that the T4 screen does not include this.  You are 
told what each digit of the UWP means, but you'll have to pull out 
Book 1 to look up the codes.  In my book, this is a big mistake on 
the screen.

The last player panel has two large tables.  One is the weapon's list 
from Book 1, and it includes weapon name, TL, Range, Shots, Mass, 
Reloads, and Cost columns.

On the bottom half of the panel is the Equipment table from Book 1 
listing item name, TL, Mass, and Cost.

I'm so-so about these tables.  They are good for quick reference, but 
I'm running my campaign in the 1100's so I doubt I'll use these 
tables very often.  For an M0 campaign, it's probably more 
appropriate, but you are still only getting the basic weapons and 
equipment from Book 1--not a combined list that details all the T4 
equipment in the CSC and the weapons that are in the EA.

Is that a negative?  Well, no, not really, but I'd be much more 
excited and impressed with the screen if the CSC and EA items were 
listed.

Now let's look at the ref's side of the screen.  All four of these 
panels have a bunch of info on them--much more than the player side 
does.

Ref panel #1 has the Encounter Range table,  the Encounter Range 
Terrain Modifiers table, and the Encounter Avoidance rule.  The 
Surprise DMs table is also printed there, and the Ground Combat 
Procedure table is below that.

You also get Vehicle Hit Location table.

The Combat Range to hit table is listed, but there is a typo on it so 
that all of the categories list only "D6".  This is easy enough to 
fix because you can take a pen or a thin black marker and write in 
the correct dice code, but it is evident that IG is carrying on its 
poor trend of typos in their products.

Also on this panel is the never before published official new task 
system.  I think that this is both good and bad.  It's good because 
they are keeping the screen up to date with the rules in T4--I'd 
really be dogging the screen if it had the old task system (the 
current one from Book 1) and they changed it in the new revised 
edition of T4.  So, I like the fact that the screen will be 
compatible with the revised editon of T4 and does not have the old 
info (which is the current info we are using now).

My gripe is really not with the screen but with Marc and IG.  They 
are keeping the attribute + skill target number calculation, which I 
think should be changed to give more creedence to having a skill.  I 
think that attributes play a big part in task success, but I also 
think that skills play a much bigger roll in that success than the 
current target number calcuation affords.

My other gripe is that they are continuing to use the half die.  So 
many people dislike using the D3, so if we are "fixing" T4, why don't 
we do it right and fix this too?  Why are we continuing to use 
something so many people dislike?  I proved that the D3 are not 
necessary with the KBv2.0 task system.  Whole die can be used to 
obtain good percentages of success.  Instead, the "new" T4 task 
system is using the half die--albeit it is only attached to one 
category, Difficult, but that category is the one most often used in 
a game.

On top of this, the screen has another typo.  The Difficult category 
is listed with a dice code of "2+D".  It should read "2.5D", and 
you'll have to pencil this in on your screen.

There's a good thing about the new task system though.  Marc is 
bringing back the Universal Task Format used in MegaTraveller.  
One-half of this panel is devoted to the new task format.  Listed is 
the Task Phrase, Task Statement, and Task Comments.  There's a 
paragraph on Task Resolution and information of performing Default 
Skill Tasks, Cooperative Tasks, Opposed Tasks, Uncertain Tasks, 
Hasty Tasks, and Cautious Tasks.

But with that, we have a bad thing too.  Spectacular Success and 
Failure are listed.  SF is now considered to occur anytime THREE 
sixes are rolled.

I've got a major problem with this.  Here's the new Task Difficulty 
table:

			Easy					(automatic)
			Easy (with Default skill)		1D
			Average					2D
			Difficult					2.5D
			Formidable				3D
			Staggering				4D
			Impossible				5D

Consulting this table, you can only have a SF on Formidable tasks or 
greater!  SF is not possible on Easy, Average, or even Difficult 
tasks!

Big, big, big problem there.  Like I said, the problem is not with 
the screen, it's this idiotic new "improved" task system that they 
are going to.

LISTEN UP PEOPLE!  DON'T USE THIS CRAPPY SYSTEM--USE KBv2.0.

And here's another problem.  SS is now when you roll three ones.  
Well, first off, like SF, you can only get SS on Difficult or higher 
difficulties, but that's not the major problem here.  When rollling 
three ones, the more dice you throw, the easier it is to roll those 
three ones.

What does that mean?  It means that the chance of rolling SS GOES UP 
the harder the task is!

Boy, oh boy, oh boy.  Why does IG insist on putting out his crap?  
T4 has the potential of being one of the best RPGs every produced, 
but IG keeps on screwing things up with rules like these.

The reason I'm coming down so hard on IG is that this isn't their 
first try at it.  This system is supposed to fix the problems in Book 
1 now, and yet--here it is their second try at it--they still come up 
with a flawed system.

KBv2.0--that's the best thing going right now.

OK, let's move on to ref panel #2.  You get the Patron Encounters, 
the Random Encounters, and the Rumors tables from Book 1.  Below that 
is a new Reaction table.  This one is more like the MT model, and 
there is another table that introduces Certainty Levels to T4.

Cool.  I like that.

Ref panel #3.  There's the Passenger's table, the Cargo table, the 
Ship Revenues table, the Brokers table, the Cost of Goods table, the 
Actual Value table, and the Market Price table.

In the center of all of these merchant tables, they've listed the 
Trade and Commerce Checklist.

A good job was done on this panel.  This is useful info that I can 
see referring to during an adventure.

Finally, we get to ref panel #4.  There's the space combat Sequence 
of Play table, the Combat Damage (space combat) table with an 
explanation of results, the Sensor Locks and Detection table, the 
Sensor Rating table, the Weapon Fire (to hit) table, and the 
Sandcasters table.

This is great and well if you like the space combat system in Book 1, 
but I think that they did a sorry job on that space combat system.  
It's hard for me to even follow what they've done.  In my games, I 
use the old Mayday rules, and I encourage you to use that or the old 
CT basic system or the High Guard system (you could even spend some 
time converting TNE's Brilliant Lances to T4).  All of these systems 
are much better than the poorly thought out High-Guard wannabe system 
that is contained in Book 1.

And, of course, there's another typo here.  On the Weapon Fire table 
that is used to see what the difficulty level is for ship when making 
a to hit throw, the attack ratings listed referr to the old Book 1 
task system.  For instance, targets at Long range require a 
Staggering roll, and it is listed here that Staggering is 3.5D when 
the new system (see above) states that Staggering rolls are done with 
4D.  This is easy to fix, though.  You just pencil in the correct 
dice code and scratch out what is printed.  It's just a shame that 
you have to do that.



The Adventure.

The adventure included with the screen look decent.  Although I've 
never seen it before, I've heard others here on the TML say that 
Memory Alpha has been around for a long time.  Marc has gone in and 
retuned the adventure for the M0 milieu and set it in the Core 
sector.  It was probably set in the Spinward Marches before, but I'm 
not sure about this since it is the first time I've seen it.  

The actual adventure comes in a stapled 8 page pamphlet written in 
the tradition of the old GDW Adventure and Double Adventure books.

Although I like the old GDW adventures, I always had a gripe that 
they were not detailed enough.  I grew up on D&D, and I always liked 
having the whole adventure planned out for me.  The GDW adventures 
always seemed like they were more adventure ideas rather than full 
blown detailed adventures, and I always hated the fact that they 
alwasy required a lot of GM prep work.  I was ecstatic when DGP 
changed this and came along with there "nugget & flow chart" style of 
adventures.

Memory Alpha is no different than these early CT adventures, but I'm 
glad it was included in the package.  I also like the fact that work 
was done on this adventure to bring it in to M0.  Although I'm 
playing in the 1100's, this shows me that they just didn't slap an 
old adventure into the game.



Summary.

Basically, I like the screen.  I've got some grips, but some of those 
are directed towards the choices that Marc and IG have made about the 
new game rules and not at the screen itself.  And, I'll say it again, 
they really need to put some more thought into that new T4 task "fix" 
before it comes out in the revised edition of Traveller.  It's really 
not a fix.  It's just new problems.

Also, I'm unhappy about the code tables for the UWP not being 
included on the screen.  I used this a lot on my DGP screen, so I 
guess that I'll just have to keep using my DGP screen along with this 
new T4 one.

They left out the animal attack rules.  I was hoping this would be on 
the screen as well.  Since these were forgotten in the main book, I 
was anxious to see how they were going to handle that given the new 
task system, but even without this, the animal attack rules are 
something that I know I would have referred to on the screen if it 
were there.  That's another negative to the screen.

Other than that, and the things that I have mentioned above, I think 
that IG has continued the trend of overpricing their products.  This 
thing is 13 bucks, which is not that bad given all that you get, but 
I remember that my old DGP screen seemed a better value.  With that, 
you actually got two screens, although they were only three panel, 
an adventure about the size of Memory Alpha, and some of those 
great old equipment sheets that DGP used to produce.  

I don't feel too bad about the value of the T4 screen, it's just that 
I felt better about the DGP screen when I bought it for MT.

And that's the way I see it.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 02:08:18 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Subject: Fighters revisted

On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Bill Rutherford wrote:

> As this is all taking place FAR into the future, what changes would there
> likely be in training methods?  You're right that air super. a/c have got
> harder to fly - but our entire learning curve is based on only 85 years'
> experience!  What'll happen over the next several score centuries?

Thats a good point bill.  The flip side to the current paradigm of initial
planes (wwwi/wwii) are simple --> modern planes (complex)  could continue
in the 50 centuries ahead by adding --> Imperial fighter (simple).

Honestly, what is there to do in a future fighter?  The pilot says i want
to get there and off he goes, the pilot cant handle dodging and split
second manuevring, especially when were talking about speed of light
weapons, so the computer will do that.  A pilot cant handle really high G
acceleration, so automation (future hydrolics?) will do that also.

The only point i wish to make is that the training issue is really vague.
A refere could say that 50th century fighters are even more complex or
more simple to handle then current day fighters.  Theres no evidence
either way (more or less complex to fly) so training may not be an issue.






An army raised without proper regard
to the choice of its recruits was
never made good by length of time.
Vegetus, On things Military, I.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 00:50:06 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

At 06:34 PM 4/8/97 -0600, "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net> wrote:
<snip>
>	If my fire control system is too stupid to realize the angular deviations
>caused by the different positions of my sensors and my weapons on a
>non-point-sized hull, I shouldn't be in space in the first place.
>

If your FCS is built by man it can be as stupid as man is.<G> How could the
FCS try to compensate ie larger area of fire, greater ROF etc then?

>>But what if deploy warheadsat 3,000km or even 300km. With a armor value of
>>CSC >50 it will shrug off any hits if you get any remember the agility DM
>>is -25 to be hit. 
>
>	Wait to deploy until 3,000km and your very expensive missile is dead.
>Assuming, of course, I've ignored a thrusting target for over an hour.
>Tactics that work against mind-dead vegetables don't fare very well against
>anybody else. 
>

Any single missile will require extraordinary conditions to successfully
get to any decently equipped target, but how many could the your ship
render inoperative/destroyed before warheads were deployed? All FCS's will
have an overload point and/or conditions, Like early version of CIWS would
not engage targets that were in certain parallel approach vectors.

At an armor value of CSC 64 or USP 12, what would the stats be for PD or
any weapon to engage of range before warhead deployment?

LTR-230-4-5: x-ray gravitic focus remote turret laser. Can be overpowered
to -5 Diff Mods with 511.111 MW power input. 230 MW of input with 1
weapon.ROF=800
Vol(m3)  Mass(ton)  Pow(MW)    Area(m2)  Price(MCr)  Crew
41.45    81.7       6.389      0         0.523       0
         Short      Medium     Long        Extreme
Range     4          8          16          32
Damage    38         38         38          38
Penetrat  12         12         12          12
         4:1/12-38  8:1/12-38  16:1/12-38  32:1/12-38
T4 USP values of 1-1-1-1

LSR-750-4-5: x-ray gravitic focus remote small bay laser. Can be
overpowered to -5 Diff Mods with 1666.667 MW power input. 750 Mw of input
with 5 weapons.ROF=800
Vol(m3)  Mass(ton)  Pow(MW)    Area(m2)  Price(MCr)  Crew
692.25   1348.5     104.165    5         13.165      0
         Short      Medium     Long        Extreme
Range     4          8          16          32
Damage    68         68         68          68
Penetrat  22         22         22          22
         4:1/22-68  8:1/22-68  16:1/22-68  32:1/22-68
T4 USP values of 8-8-8-8

LLR-750-4-5: x-ray gravitic focus remote large bay laser. Can be
overpowered to -5 Diff Mods with 1666.667 MW power input. 750 Mw of input
energy with 10 weapons. ROF=800
Vol(m3)  Mass(ton)  Pow(MW)    Area(m2)  Price(MCr)  Crew
1384.5   2697       208.33     10	       26.33	     0
         Short      Medium     Long        Extreme
Range     4          8          16          32
Damage    68         68         68          68
Penetrat  22         22         22          22
         4:1/22-68  8:1/22-68  16:1/22-68  32:1/22-68
T4 USP values of 10-10-10-10

             USP
LTR-230-4-5: 1-1-1-1
LSR-750-4-5: 8-8-8-8
LLR-750-4-5: 10-10-10-10
Well none of the TL-15 Lasers will get thru a USP of 12

Lets something else then
PS-144-3-5: N-PAW small bay particle beam. Can be overpowered to -5 Diff
Mods with 320 MW power input. 144Mw of input energy with 5 weapons. ROF=800
Vol(m3)  Mass(ton)  Pow(MW)    Area(m2)  Price(MCr)  Crew
398.745  432.43375  20         8.835     25.0445     1
         Short      Medium     Long        Extreme
Range     3          6          12          24
Damage    56         28         14          7
         3:56       6:28       12:14       24:7
T4 USP values of 3-2-1-0

PL-256-4-5: N-PAW large bay particle beam. Can be overpowered to -5 Diff
Mods with 568.889 MW power input. 256 Mw of input with 4 weapons. ROF 800
Vol(m3)  Mass(ton)  Pow(MW)    Area(m2)  Price(MCr)  Crew
654.392  695.794    28.444     12.568    46.5192     1
         Short      Medium     Long        Extreme
Range     4          8          16          32
Damage    80         67         33          17
         4:80       8:67       16:33      32:17
T4 USP values of 6-3-2-1

Well neither of the Particle beams will get thru USP of 12. 
The spinal mounts can be designed to kill the torpedo/missile but that kind
like swatting a fly with 20 pound sledgehammer, yes if you hit it its gone,
you will get tired of swinging that hammer. <G>
 
>	As for CSC agility DM, Greg himself acknowledges his VEHICLE system
>doesn't work for space combat, and was never intended to. Go back and pull
>of some of the posts on the actual chances of hitting an object at various
>ranges (by Merrick, I believe). 

Hmmm.. I do not recall ever hearing that from him, just call me "Doubting
Thomas" <G>, but is not just his VEHICLE system it is T4's. At some point
the two systems will have to mesh.

Yes I have seen those posts but they IMO seem to deal in "ideal" firing
situations, not what would be routinely found in combat. If the FCS will
only be as accurate as the data supplied by sensors.

What is current stand figuring agility in the NAH/GDW-Beta? As of today the
GDW-Beta archives are not every current. 

Also Dave are you aware that the "Admiralty" part of your web site has lots
of missing links?
- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 01:03:41 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: [Emperor's Arsenal Errata Found]

Ok I have only found tow items of errata/corrections so far.

Page 10: Paragraph Minefields:
The referred to Detonation Roll listed above is not there.

Page 93: Grenade-14, Grenade, Plasma-14
In the black background are describing the two weapons the data for the
Grenade-14 is present but name Grenade-14 is blank/black.

Other than that an EXCELLENT product.


- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 02:20:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: ToddMoody@aol.com
Subject: G Onset rate

It's the rate of rate of change and more or less unimportant in Traveller.
People tend to do analogies with bodern day stuff like fighterplane engines
which doesn't hold in Traveller. The time going from idle to full throttle
in a fighter has to do with the time to spin up the turbine. In Traveller
you flip a switch and you get full thrust right away.<<<<

Incorrect.  It is the rate of change of the angular momentum.  IOW, its how
fast you can change direction.  For example - Bank and pull hard and you
start turning, pull harder and you turn faster but pull more G's.  The
maximum G load isn't as important here as the ability of the airframe to turn
quickly (as long as you don't exceed the capacity and rip the wings off ;->).
 A T-37 has a max G rating of a little over 5 but has one of the highest G
onset rates in the world. It ain't fast  but it can really turn quick.   This
is what I call agility.

Changing direction quickly is a very big part of dogfighting (but not
everything).  I will grant you that against a Capital Ship a fighter doesn't
have a chance but against smaller ships it will be an effective weapon and
being able to outmaneuver your opponent has got to be some margin for help.
 You tell me how to employ Agility to a large spaceship.  It will be more
than the leaning they did on the old Star Trek.  ;-)

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1161
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest      Wednesday, April 9 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1162



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

stop!
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Re: Was: Fighters, Now: Boats (Off-Topic)_
Re: G onset rate
Re: Honest Review of Emperor's Arsenal (long)
Re: Fighters revisted
Re: Subject: Fighters revisted
RE: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors
Re: Fighters revisted (Long)
Re: Energy Propagation For Sensors
Re: Fighters - Revisted II
Re: Submarine Fighters
Re: Fire control, long
Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)
Re: Fighters - what ranges???
Re: AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)
Re: Fighters - The Truth is out there

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 16:30:55 +1000 (EST)
From: Peter Lawlor <mrblue@blitzen.canberra.edu.au>
Subject: stop!

could you please stop sending me these traveller digest emails. i have
never joined this thing and they are taking up my space.


MR BLUE

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 09:27:57 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

>What sorts of operating systems are there? None that we would
>recognize. Operating systems, as we know them, will operate without
>much direct interaction with the user. Users will use complex VR
>interfaces to get things done.
 I do NOT think that everyday users will interface with VR systems. They
will interface with people like artificial constructs that you talk to more
or less like an aide or a secretary but with broad and deep expertise. The
VR style computers is a gaming thing or from the highly implausible Gibson
books (good read though). We have consumer priced VR stuff today but nobody
is making accounting packages, wordprocessors, data analysis siftware for
VR. VR is good for games and perhaps porn. BTW pornographic VR software
should be a big seller for starship crews to while away those boring weeks
in hyperspace.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 09:34:31 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

>        Comparisons to cyberpunk genre games start creeping in here,
>leading to the 64,000 Cr question...why ISN'T Traveller cyberpunkish?

Because it is based on SF literature that predates cyberpunk by a decade or
two depending on wether you've read "Dra Adder" or not. I like the absence
of cyberpunk in Traveller as cyberpunk seems to have so little workable
ideas and so much cliche'. TNE however had the feel of cyberpunk so there
you could insert cybernetic chainsaw arms and general nihilistic feel.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 09:20:29 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Was: Fighters, Now: Boats (Off-Topic)_

>I'm willing to believe that an aircraft carrier can outrun a speedboat.  I
>believe a ship's speed is, at least in part, determined by its length at
>the waterline, although I can't say I understand the physics of this
>phenomenon (I think it has something to do with the ratio of drag at the
>air/water interface, versus the overall volume of the hull - which might
>have something to do with the speed of submarines, too - but I'm really
>in, uh, over my head, hydrodynamically-speaking, and am probably at least
>partially wrong).  Racing yachts are often built with a "reverse transom,"
>to increase their length at the waterline, without increasing their length
>overall (which, I believe, is important for determining which races
>they can legally be entered into, for arcane reasons).
>                                                           - J. Raynor

For simplicity a boat with a given mass thus a given displacement volume
the longer the waterline the smaller the frontal area and thus less drag
keeping draft fixed. This is not entirely true but good enough to account
for larger vessels generally go faster in water.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 10:07:36 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: G onset rate

>Anders, it doesn't *have* to be that way.  Thrusters *could* need a warm up
>period, before they go online, or ramp up from 0 thrust to full thrust over
>a period of time. This could be an interesting limitation to stick
>thrusters with..powerful and don't need reaction mass, but expensive and
>takes time to power up.

Agree, I'm only trying to enlighten people as to why people seem to take
for granted that the G onset will be slow. I bet people also imagine the
thrusters sounding like turbines like they do in StarWars.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 09:45:57 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Honest Review of Emperor's Arsenal (long)

>If think that if they do something right, then we should be just as
>passionate about telling everyone about it.
>
>Too many times, people focus on the negatives and forget about the
>positives.

What exactly good has IG done except the T-shirts and mousepads?
All there products are contradicory buggy and only improving compared to
their earlier works. Try comparing any IG products to lets say Steve
Jackson games. I stopped buying their stuff after reading rave reviews of
CSC and finding it to be mostly crappy, bad art but with a few interesting
tidbits ie the best so far.

Sorry about being so bad tempered but I haven't had my coffee yet.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 09:40:12 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Fighters revisted

>Another possibility would be neutrino guided missiles that go for the
>power plant (?)  These are the only two thing i could think of that would
>be worth sticking on a fighter and possibly making them ;ship killers'

Neutrino detectors need to be large otherwise there wouldn't be any other
sensors as they are so advantageous: You can look through planets and keep
your sensors under armor. Also the detection capability increases with
volume rather than area.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 09:57:24 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Subject: Fighters revisted

>As this is all taking place FAR into the future, what changes would there
>likely be in training methods?  You're right that air super. a/c have got
>harder to fly - but our entire learning curve is based on only 85 years'
>experience!  What'll happen over the next several score centuries?

If future advances make 'em easier then the designers will cram in more
functions for the pilot to do. Fighter pilots will drive around some pretty
expensive hardware so making them utilize it as much as possible will be
high priority.

You assume that they will be easier and give examples from WWII, I think
they'll get harder by giving the entire history of flight as a trend. Then
you say that we do not know what the future will be which I agree to.
Either we say we do not know or they'll get harder. If you decide your
future will have simple to use ships OK but my argument was simply that the
WWII example was invalid.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 13:04:37 +0400
From: Andy Long <andyl@icluae.co.ae>
Subject: RE: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors

>>>>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:	anders.backman@aniware.se [SMTP:anders.backman@aniware.se]
>Sent:	Monday, April 07, 1997 11:54 PM
>To:	traveller@MPGN.COM
>Subject:	Re: Range Calculations Errors For Sensors
>
>>My model for grav focussing is that the system fires a grav pulse that
>>travels with the beam, pulling it in by just enough to counteract the
>>spreading due to diffraction (this requires much more reasonable field
>>strengths than a point source in front of the laser would) - so it won't
>>work for sensors.
>>
>>Bruce
>
>For those stupid active sensors it could help keeping the outgoing pulse
>togeter.
>
>[andy long] <<<<
>
>My impression of gravitic focussing involved producing a gravitational
>'lense' *at the emitter*. I confess that I didn't give it much thought at the
>time. Given the way Dave Nilsen 'uninvented' much of the previous grav
>technology in TNE, I wouldn't have thought that the technology existed to
>match a 'grav pulse' with the outgoing laser beam.
>
>I haven't seen T4 yet - is there anything in that which explains it better?
>
>Andy
>
>================================================================
>smtp Email:	andyl@icluae.co.ae OR
>		andylong@x400.icl.co.uk OR
>		A.G.Long@abu0101.wins.icl.co.uk OR
>		andylong@emirates.net.ae
>x400 Email:	c=ae;a=emdan;p=icl;ou1=abu0101;s=Long;i=AG;
>		o=International Computers Ltd;
>A.G. Long, c/o ICL	Phone:	+971 (2) 335200/338066
>PO Box 7237		Fax:	+971 (2) 338724
>Abu Dhabi
>United Arab Emirates
>================================================================
> 

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 20:40:34 +1200
From: Andrew Vallance <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Fighters revisted (Long)

>Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 01:35:03 +1000 (EST)
>From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
>Subject: Fighters revisted

>On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Andrew Vallance wrote:

>I liked the points you made Andrew, and i agree with most, but heres my
>thinking.

Why thank you. Like you I do believe fighters have a place in Traveller.
I don't see them as the dogfighting versions beloved of SF movies, more
as the space equivilant of Fast Attack Craft. The carrier as I see it
is not carring F/A-18's, but something closer to a Osa or Tarantil <sp>

>>just don't have the size to mount the sensors of a big ship and their
>>crews aren't large enough for any slack.

>They dont need the sensors of a big ship.  It would be wastage.  They
>would be ordered (im assume) to go to cordinates x,y,z and engage detected
>hostiles.  They would just need targeting, and even this may be redundent

They still need sensors, even with smart missiles they have to know which
direction to point them :*).

>>>Fighters would be quite versatile as well.  Fighters could more easily
>>>(and cheaply) be used for planetary warfare, so there dual role would be
>>>valuable.

>>So can a battleship, it sits up high with good defenses against planetry
>>based fire and shoots down. Very effective. A fighter on the other hand
>>has to go down to where atmospheric interceptors (more effective than
>>general purpose space fighters) can engage.

>True.  Im also making an assumption here that in taking a world you dont
>want to obliterate it.  So a battleship (unstreamlined cause its cheaper)
>wouldnt have the finese for targeting as a fighter would.  Also
>battleships couldnt give much support to troops on the ground (close
>quarter support) as opposed to "we want this sector nuked" which the
>battleship would be handy for :)

There's a maxim with artillery, it goes "Don't tap it, thump it". Orbiting
battleships would be *very* good at thumping things. However as you point
out there are problems with ortillery (orbital artillery). The atmosphere
makes targeting difficult; assuming that most ortillery will be missile
fire (or more likely smart deadfall) there's a time delay; it relies on
having your big ships in orbit where they are vulunerable to planetry based
fire; its not as flexible as direct support; and probably most important, it
doesn't have the same morale effect. There's something very comforting for
the troops on the ground to be able to physically see their support. It
might be nice to see a concentration of enemy troops or a bunker disappear
from orbital fire, but the troops would most likely prefer to see a squadron
of fighters roar overhead. It just makes them feel safer, regardless of the
reality of the situation.

>>Carrying a weapon is very different from being able to target with it.
>>The biggest weapon in the world is of little use if you can't hit with it.
>>In space combat the velocity are going to so great that you're going to
>>have very short engagement times. Therefore you are going to need some
>>very effective targeting and control; and there will be a minimum size craft
>>required to mount it.

>Okay, lets assume that the weapon is a smart device, has inbuilt targeting.
>Maybe its so smart that it homes in on transponder signals. No need for
>excessively complicated targeting on the fighter itself, just on the
>weapon.  What do you think of that?

I'd agree here. Missiles regardless of launching platform would be "smart"
missiles. They might be terminal guidance (they get close, activate their
own sensors and locate and lock on), Radiation Homing (rely on active
emissions of the target, the classic ARM missile, good at taking out your
enemies active sensors), or semi-active homing (rely on illumination of the
target by another source). Fighters could use either terminal guidance or
radiation homing. The fighter still needs to have some sensors (you have
to know roughly where the target is). They'd have to be passive (better
range and less likely to assist the enemy targeting you). This makes a
fighter a missile launch rack. Esentially increasing the survivability
of your armarment by spreading it out over a larger area and making the
launchers individually mobile. A very rough analogy might be an artillery
battery in a dispersed battery site (heavy emphasis on the rough analogy).
The question here is does the increase in survivablity make up for the
increased cost (both in Cr and tonnage) of the figther support facilities?

Here's an interesting thought. If Thrust plates emit a range of unusual
particles (SSDS), why not build a missile with a guidance system which
homes in on them? The traveller equivilent of a Sidewinder. If you switch
off your thrusters you become a sitting duck. This gives the counter
measure of thruster flares.

>>A battleship (100,000Td+) could quite concievably handle several hundred
>>missile attacks and probably absorb quite a few that get through. Plus
>>battleships wouldn't operate individually, they'd operate as part of an
>>intergrated task group with significant small escorts, greatly increasing
>>their survivability.

>Yes of course, but the orginal poster used 1 battlerider vs an equal
>tonnage of fighters, which i think is wrong (and i stated so) but i
>remained within the confines of the argument.

Sorry, I hadn't been following the full thread. Any admiral who would
commit any capital ship without support deserves to be cashiered.

>Also, pilot scarceness is culturally linked as well as resource linked.
>Germany in wwII had no real problem in finding pilots, nor did japan (they
>sacrificed hundreds by the end of the war).  The soviet union and the USA
>also didnt have extensive problems with pilot acquisition, while England
>did.

As an aside, the Japanese at the end of the war did have very big problems
with finding pilots. They had started the war with the best pilots in the
world, but had an inadequate training system and couldn't replace their
losses. They went to great lengths to avoid using pilots in kamakazi attacks
(generally unsuccesfully I might add). The crews of the kamakazi aircraft
weren't pilots, they were a missile guidance system; trained in bulk to
take off, fly a very basic course and crash (they were not trained to land),
They were trained on the ground, many of them never took off in an aircraft
before their actual mission.
Incidently the during the 2nd WW the British developed a very effective
system of missile guidance based around trained pidgens, capable of taking
individual bridge supports over 1,000km. It was never deployed. Apparently
the British high command was heavy in bird fanciers, and as the pidgen died,
they considered it to be just not good form. The worlds first (and only) PGM
(Pidgen Guided Munition). Just another bit of mindless trivia, but I'm sure
an enterprising traveller umpire could work that one in somewhere :*).

>Im assuming that the opposing powers are of equal resource strength (large
>empires perhaps?) and wouldnt have a great problem with training new
>pilots - which still doesnt justfy wasting them though.

Its not the problem of finding new pilots, its the problem of training them.
At least two years, which goes a good way to negating the speed of
construction advantage. Plus you have to devote considerable resources to
maintaining a training establishment, pilots are training intensive.

>>The hstorical reason for the supremacy of the carrier is very simple, it
>>can be summed up in one word: Range. A battleship is capable of absorbing
>>far more damage than a carrier, can carry far better defences and can
>>fight in conditions which will leave a carrier floundering. The only
>>advantage the carrier has is range. A battleship can engage targets maybe
>>40Km away, a carrier 400Km away. In space this advantage is much less.
>>Plus much of the aircrafts advantages depend on recoving a significant
>>number of lost crews, which isn't going to happen in space.

>True.  So perhaps we should remould the argument.  Im willing to concede
>that carrier based massed fighters maybe redundent, but what about planet
>based or mixed arm battleships (battleship carries a small squadron of
>planes)?

An interesting idea. It comes down to do the advantages of the fighters
(increased survivability of your missile batteries and increased flexibility
of role for the missile batteries) make up for the cost of the fighter
support facilities? Under HG I think it would, I'm not sure about FFS or T4.

As to operations around a planet, its a whole different coffee pot of
herrings. Here the fighter does make sense. The ranges will be much closer,
the big ship is deprived of it's range advantage, the fighter can hide by
skooting down into the atmoshpere. Here you need a carrier with your own
fighters to deal with the planetry based fighters. Even a 2000Td destroyer
is going to have to think very careful about following fighters down into an
atmosphere.

>>Oh and BTW the last classic battleship dual was in the Pacific in 1944.

>Hmmm, have to check that, Gualdalcanal? (mispelled for sure)

Guadalcanal. But no it was Surigao Strait. Fuso and Yamashiro against
Tennesse, West Virginia, Maryland and Mississippi; 24-25 Oct 1944. The
Japanese lost.

>>A big ship can put its critical systems at its core. Making them all but
>>impossible to hit. You will be able to hurt a ship by hitting its vulnerable
>>surface systems, but your unlikely to kill it. What you can do however is
>>soften it up for an easy kill by a bigger ship.

>True, but its more convenient to place sensors and the bridge in usually
>susceptable places.  Also, the spinal mount can be susceptable to attack
>as well as the engines.  The destruction of anyone of these things will
>badly affect the battleships combat ability.

Exactly, the fighters don't "kill" the ship, but weaken it so another big
ship can easily. But in this role the fighters would have to stick close
to your own big ships for protection. Here the analogy is torpedo boats,
they hide behind your battle line and dash out and launch a stand off
attack. Think of the classic torpeodo charge. They don't even have to
actually inflict any real damage on the enemy, just launch enough missiles
to occupy them for a bit, giving your big ships a tactical advantage.
There are certain systems which just have to on or near the surface. Things
like sensors, drive exhausts, weapons etc (not incidentaly the bridge, the
modern CIC is put very deep in the ship); and these will be vulunerable and
the loss of them will really hurt.

>>The fighter/ship analogy is not a good one, a far better one is FAC/ship.
>>space fighters don't have the massive speed advantage. Throw 100+ Osa II
>>against a Iowa plus escorts and the Iowa wins. Space fighters won't be able
>>to do the hit and run that modern aircraft rely on against ships.

>So, the assumption (which may well be right - i havnt played traveller in
>years, and never played the current version) is that Battleships, in the
>main, no matter what size, will have 6g acceleration?

I'm not really qualified to comment. I'd see the average battleship as
having 4 or 5g acceleration, so the fighter would have a slight edge, just
enough to act as a torpedo boat. However I am not that familiar with either
T4 design or FFS to make a good judgement. I still use HG. I'm not that
interested in indepth ship designs, I regard it as a distraction from role
playing (No value judgement, just what I personally prefer).


>>Yes, but battleships would carry comparitevly few big guns, most of their
>>weaponry would be smaller weapons to keep fighters and other smaller ships
>>at bay. The big guns would be truely impressive, but they would have a
>>very respectable secondary armarment.

>Which, again i will concede.  I was seperating a HS weapons as they are
>today, and have been for many years - Big Guns used for shore bombardment
>and capital vs capital combat and PD weapons used for anti air warfare.

As someone has pointed out, in M:0 this may not be true, ships might not
have a good secondary anti-fighter armarment. However as soon as fighters
appear, they will get one PDQ.

>Also, if i remember corecctly the High Guard rules had a limit on the
>number of turrets that a vessel could have, is this still true?  If so,
>then fighters could outgun Battleships in equal tonnange/cost (?)

As I understand it, no its not. The limit now is volume and surface area.
But then again, I still use HG. It produces ships I regard as good enough
and allows me to conentrate on what I prefer (roleplaying). I've yet to
see any PC's in a ship which can slug it out with even a 2000Td escort,
so as long as the rules reflect that, I'm happy :*). Any rule system that
gives the PC's a chance of taking out a 100,000Td battleship is fundimentally
broken IMHO (not that any traveller system does as far as I'm aware).

  Andrew etc.
    a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz

****************************************************************************
  Be pure, Be strong, Behave
****************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 10:29:24 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Energy Propagation For Sensors

In mail, sinbad@dfw.net writes:

> Just because the target is radiating energy of specific level does not
> mean that all of that radiating energy level is will be usable by
> sensors.

<snip>

> We will also say that for this TL X passive sensor to detect the
> radiating signal the signal level must be greater than .5 microwatts.

And there is where your argument falls apart. Check out the signal
levels required by current detectors. Especially by IR detectors.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 20:44:52 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Fighters - Revisted II

In mail you write:

>> So a ship that can accelerate at 6g for 10 minutes, and one that can
>> accelerate at 1 g for 60 minutes both have the same "top speed". And
>> they'll both have to be rescueed if they reach it, because they will
>> have used all their fuel to reach it and thus can't slow down!
>
> So practically, the 10 minutes/6g combo is the "faster" ship, correct?

No. It's the one that can accelerate more rapidly. It's *speed* depends
on how *long* it can accelerate. "Faster" is not the right term for
this, because it brings in ideas that are flat out *wrong*. "Higher
performance" is a more reasonable term. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 14:45:06 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

In mail you write:

>> "Big" ships can't operate effectively at accelerations higher than
>> their g-comp rating. Fighters *can*. 
>
> Huh?  I can see how they could rotate better, but whay could a guy
> in a couch on a fighter pull more (linear) acceleration gs than a
> guy in a couch on a BB?

Easy. The guy in the fighter is picked for a higher g tolerance. The
guy in the BB can't boost above the *lowest* g tolerance in the crew
unless he's willing to sacrifice that crew member (and it won't always
be certain *which* crew members he'll be injuring or killing at a given
acceleration).

> I can see the point if we assume the BB crew is walking around
> and not strapped in.

That too.

> What do you mean?

A combo of the fact that one a big ship you tend to need the crew to be
able to move around, and the "ship is limited to the *lowest*
g-tolerance on board" and the "fighter pilots are picked for high
g-tolerance" does it quite nicely.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 15:32:14 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Fire control, long

In mail you write:

> Well would your 7.62 have the pen value to even scuff the paint job of a
> warship?

At "typical" impact velocities in Traveller, it'll do a lot more than
scuff the paint!

At 3 km/sec it's equivalent to setting off a chunk of TNT the same
weight. At 6 km/sec it's *4* times as powerful. At 9 km/sec it's 9
times as powerful. At 12 km/sec it's 16 times....

But we are more likely talking about something like 300 km/sec. That
gives 100^2 or 10,000 times as powerful. If a 7.62 round masses what I
think it does, we are talking about a quarter *ton* of TNT.

Kinetic kill would rule if we could only find a way to aim them where
the ship will be when they get there!

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 14:23:02 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)

In mail you write:

> Nevertheless, vectors have to be matched, and if the target ship has weeks of
> acceleration behind it, weeks of acceleration (by an equal G rated ship) are
> required to match vectors. This would seem (to me) to make high vector space
> combat unlikely, or - at least - rare.

Well, don't forget that "weeks" of acceleration aren't at all likely.
Any trip that'd take a week of accel/decel (ie 3.5 days of each) is
going to be covered by a microjump instead.

Also 3.5 days of accel at 6 g takes you 18+ AU. with the additional 3.5
days of decel that gives 35+ AU total. That's out past Neptune!

But "high vector" *attacks* are possible. For example, I could fire
rounds from a (big) mass driver at where you'd be. Sure it'd take a lot
of rounds to cover the area you might be in by the time they get there.
On the other hand, at those speeds even a BB will make you toast! (max
speed during that 35+ AU trip is 18,144 km/s. That's 6% of c!)

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 18:34:24 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Fighters - what ranges???

In mail you write:

> But given the lack of air resistance, what's the max range of Traveller
> missiles?  

The problem isn't range. It's delta-v. The missiles have an infinite
range, but they have a *very* restricted capability to change course.
Between light speed lag, and evasive measures there is a maximum range
at which you can fire the missile and still have any hope of it coming
near the target.

You fire a missile at where you *think* the target will be when the
missile gets there. If the target is "nearby" when the missile gets
into range of the *missile's* sensors, then it can try to correct its
course to intercept. But the greater the range you fire from, the more
time the target has to manuever, and the less chance that the missile
will have the fuel for an intercept.

The "limiting case" for missiles is the inert projectile with no
maneuvering capability. It can only hit if the target is where it was
aimed for when it gets there. Once a missile has used up its manuever
capability, it's an inert projectile, and worthless if it is far enough
away for a course change to get the target out of its path.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 10:36:51 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)

In mail you write:

>> In mail you write:
>> 
>> > I don't know how useful it would be, but I know I wouldn't want to
>> > be anywhere near that sitting duck errr AWACS ship when it lights
>> > up it's active sensors....then _everything_ will see it, unless
>> > you're also positing that (like our AWACS aircraft) they also have
>> > significant jamming capability.
>> 
>> Trouble is, you *can't* "jam" IR. Well you can put out "flares", but
>> sensors can easily ignore ones that aren't radiating at the "right"
>> wavelengths/intensities.
>>
> No you don't "Jam"  IR, you "Mask" it.  At least that is what we do 
> at TL8.

But that's the point. You *can't* mask it. Not in space. The background
is dead "black". The ship is glowing "white". And any "mask" *near* the
ship will absorb the heat it is supposed to be blocking, which then
makes *it* start glowing.

Space is a bitch because you don't *have* heat sinks!

> Just because the limited ship combat systems for traveller don't 
> address it doesn't mean that there wouldn't be ECM and ECCM to help 
> ships avoid detection at higher tech levels.

Only if you repeal a bunch of the laws of physics.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 20:52:52 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Fighters - The Truth is out there

In mail you write:

> Okay, i started the whole fighter fiasco, now how about this little twist 
> - since there seems to be a bunch of quite well informed people on the 
> list, what are peoples opinions about REAL fighters in space?
>
> I'll set the parameters (to establish some sort of order)
>
> No traveller rule limits - if you can invent it and justify it, you can
> use it.
>
> You can use any current technology available AND any traveller technology
> availiable (this will allow for jumps and lasers etc).

My opinions remain the same, as they were based on physics, not the rules!

Without g-comp, a fighter can go faster simply because the only limit
is what the pilot can take. Big ships are limited to what the weakest
crew member can take.

With limited g-comp, the results are the same. With unlimited g-comp
(or at least g-comp that can handle as much as the drive can put out)
this advantage disappears.

On the other hand, small vessels getting near large *military* ships
are likely to fry (same reasons given here). Some sort of "force shield
might help, but then the big ship would be even *harder* to hurt with
the small ship's weapons.

Non miltary vessels are toast for anything armed. Armed merchants are
toast to anything thatis better armed, or that get the drop on them. 

So as I said in the discussion, fighter do scouting, harass shipping,
and try not to be noticed by big ships.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1162
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest      Wednesday, April 9 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1163



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: matching vectors (new questions)
Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)
Re: Info needed (jump duration / accuracy)
Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters
Re: TL & the Darrians
Re: Sensor strength analysis
The Half-Die
Re: M:0 map and what happened to Zhunastu Enterprises?
Yet more Pigeons
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Re: Known Bright Star List for the Alpha Leonis/Crucis Sector
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 15:22:12 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: matching vectors (new questions)

In mail you write:

> But the missiles that I have designed use T-plates for drive then no hot
> exhaust plume. Detection of target and the range calc accuracy are on
> another message thread, please read it. Also check out the message on
> energy propagation too.

Must be some awfully big missiles. T-plates have a *large* minimum size!

>>Please note that the same "mark 1 eyeball" can detect the light
>>reflected off a sphere less than half a meter across at several hundred
>>miles. That is, I was able to see Sputnik I from the ground...
>
> Yes but can your mk1 tell you the range to the sputnik?

No but it tells me where to point the stuff that can.

>>>>That'd be like trying to sneak up on the cargo plane while aiming
>>>>landing lights at the pilot!
>>>
>>> But under daylight conditions using leading edge lights the carge plane
>>> would not detect the approacing palne until it very close. This method was
>>> tested/used during WWII on aircraft searching for Uboats and had a greater
>>> success than most people know about.
>>
>>But that's my whole point. That trick worked because the lights made
>>the plane about the same brightness as the sky behind it. In space, the
>>sky is far *darker* than you can get any ship or missile to be!
>>
>
> Who says that can not make it darker look in CSC under Black Hole coating.

In which case you fry the crew. The heat *has* to be able to escape. If
it doesn't the ship becomes a pressure cooker...

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 14:33:25 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors

In mail you write:

> Matter is settled as far as I'm concerned, in Summary:
>
> Boarding CAN take place, procedure is as follows:
>
> Border ship MUST have higher G rating (equal is not good enough).
>
> Border ship MUST match vector (thus there is a timing constraint, hiding in
> an asteroid belt to jump ships isn't going to do you a heck of a lot of good
> if every ship that goes by has had HOURS of acceleration applied to them,
> it'll take you HOURS to match vector).

Asteroid belts don't look much like what you see in the movies or tv.
It'll be highly unusual to be able to see one asteriod when you are on
another. Even in "dense" sections, it'll be thousands of km between
bodies. 

> Border ship MUST be equipped with some sort of grappel harpoon.
>
> Border ship MUST have greater relative mass in order to render victim's
> maneuver (attitude jets, whatever) useless.
>
> How much relative mass? I don't know off hand, I would say enough to make
> reduce the victims maneuver to a point where it can't cause any damage with a
> spin-ram.

Slight problem. What are you using for cable on that "harpoon"? You'd
need unobtanium to keep it from snapping. You'll have hundreds of tons
of stress on it. And that will snap any reasonable sized cable like a
thread. All it take is one burst from the main drive and the cable is
trying to (in effect) support the mass of the ship against the drive's
g rating. And if there was any slack, it's as if the ship *dropped*
that far under that many g. So when the slack runs out, the cable may
snap. The anchor point may tear loose or the grapple will tear loose.
Probably the last.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 11:01:48 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)

In mail you write:

>>Since a fighter is essentially the *only* vessel that can run at a
>>higher acceleration than the g-comps can nuetralize,
>
>         Why? Yes, I can't run my 500,000Dt battleship at 3G over
> GComp for weeks.  But the fighter can't do that either, because it
> doesn't have the endurance.
>
>         Any naval designer worth the designation will design warships
> with the thrust vector aligned properly and acceleration couches for
> the entire crew. So I can't do damage control while running at 3G
> excess. Neither can the "fighter."

But fighters can't do much in the way of "damage control" anyway.
Consider a ship and a PT boat. If the ship takes significant damage, it
has damage control to fix it while underway. If a PT boat takes an
equivalent amount of damage it's either going to have to limp along, or
it's dead in the water (or just plain dead).

The real trick is that even *with* acceleration couches, g-tanks, and
what have you, there's still an *individual variance in how many gees
you can handle. You pick fighter pilots from the top 5%? 1%? The folks
on larger ships *can't* be selected that way except to for a minimum
standard. You need too mant different sorts of skills and training. 

So the fighter pilot is *inherently* more capable of handling high
g-loads or he wouldn't *be* a fighter pilot.

>> it does have the
>>ability to do things you can't do with larger vessels. 
>
>         Given that I _can_ run a properly designed warship of any
> size at excess G's, this kind of falls out.

But not as many as the fighter can! And the bigger the crew the *lower*
the limit will be. The max accel of a ship is limited to what the
*weakest* person aboard can handle. 

Remember, since we are talking about extended duration on this, that
means that you aren't just making the folks with lower g tolerances
uncomfortable, or even unconcious. You are *injuring*, and likely
*killing* them. Since you don't carry *that* many spare crew for any
given position, you wind up losing people you *need*.

I predict that except in dire emergency, most large vessels *won't*
overrun the g-comps by more than a g, if that. They probably would
never be *designed* to do so, because of the risks to the crew.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 17:10:25 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Info needed (jump duration / accuracy)

In mail you write:

>>shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) said:
>>Anyway, right now, I'm interested in two items:
>>
>>1. Jump duration and/or accuracy
>>       So far all I've found is the stuff that says "X parsecs" and
>>       "one week" in all the rules, and the 120 + 2d*6 duration rule
>>       from Starship Operator's manual. What other references are
>>       there?
>
> The MegaTraveller Journal, #2 has an "official" note in the Q&A section
> about jump duration.  The question posed there was essentially "if jump
> times are so random, how can a fleet commander get all of his ships into a
> system at once?"
>
> Joe D. Fugate answered it, and suggested that if you double the jump
> preparation time, you change the jump duration from:
>
> 124 hrs + (2D x 6 hrs)           (Starship Operator's Manual, vol 1)
>
>          to
>
> 167 hrs + (2D x 0.1 hr)
>
> yielding a pretty uniform time.  Oddly enough, the SOMv1 suggests that jump
> exit "may occur as early as 120 hours" - how they get that from 124+(2Dx6)
> I don't know. :)

They also say it can be as late as 200 hours, which is just as hard to
get from the formula. :-)

They also say 168 +/- 10% elsewhere! (I'd do that as 168 * ((2d-7)*.2))

> Given Joe's formula for double jump prep time, I have to ask why anyone
> would NOT spend twice the time (especially at higher TL where it only takes
> minutes).  Trade routes would be far more predictable;  you could easily
> say "I'll be there in 192 hours +/- 1" rather than "oh, a week plus or
> minus a day".  You lose the chance of an early arrival, but IMHO
> predictability on a regular merchant run is better than sometimes getting
> there early.

So what's the normal jump prep time? 

Also, while there seem to be lots of references to jump *duration*,
there's nothing about *spatial* accuracy! That is, Just how close can I
come to a selected exit point?

This is very important for fleet manuevers too!

>>2. creating "communications routes"
>>       The first edition of the "little black books" had a table for
>>       determining if there was a "route" between systems based on the
>>       distance and starport type. I can't find my copies, if someone
>>       else can, please post.
>
> Book 3 mentions trade routes in its subsector mapping chapter.  There is no
> table in my book;  they essentially say "draw them in where they make sense."

I know. That's what my *second* edition books (from "Deluxe Traveller")
say. But I *Know* that the first ed books have a table. I just haven't
found that box in my storage locker yet.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 10:44:52 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters

In mail you write:

> On 04/05/97 at 04:57 AM,  shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) said:
>
>> Consider. In one second, with a 6g drive, you can change your position
>> from your predicted position by 60 meters. Assuming that your fighter is
>> only *10* meters across, that's 6 diameters. So at 1/2 a light second,
>> you are safe because the light/radar/whatever signal that bounced off
>> your fighter took 1/2 a second to get to the enemy, and the return laser
>> shot takes 1/2 second to come back (plus a few milliseconds for
>> calculating and aiming). So by the time it gets there you are 60 meters
>> away.

My mistake. *30 meters* (I fogot the .5 in .5 AT^2)

>> Now try this at .1 light seconds. The lag is .2 seconds. In that time you
>> can only move 2.4 meters with a 6g drive. That's a lot less than the 10
>> meters across that your fighter is. So the shot aimed "dead center" hits
>> a couple meters to the side. You've still been hit.

And this one is 1.2 meters. <sigh> At least I was consistent.
 
> Yep, you're right.  Actually, it's probably even *worse* than you discribe! 

It was. :-)

> It's very unlikely the fighter would be able to change vectors fast
> enough to really help it even at a 1/2 ls.  If it could instantly
> apply 6g in some lateral direction then it will be in a 6 diameter
> hit circle of probability (that works out to something like 1/36
> chance to hit), but the fighter *can't* change heading
> instantaniously, it's going to take time.  Even if it accelerates
> right through the heading change (this is where the g load will whack
> the pilot) it won't have moved 6 diameters away in 1 second!

It doesn't *have to be "lateral". For example, the pilot can get a 6g
change simply by *cutting* the drive if he was boosting at 6g when you
watched. :-)

Or if you go with the "figure for coasting", then he gets a 6g boost by
firing full throttle. And remember, even if he is firing the main drive
while turning, he is taking the 6 g on his *back*, and only the
steering jet thrust in some other direction. So "taking" the gees isn't
a problem.

> How much the fighter can evade depends on how fast it can turn, how
> much g load the pilot can take, how fast it can accelerate, and how
> much time it takes the sensor/shot to make the round trip.

Since the g load is on his back, there's no likely design where
it's a factor worth worrying about. Even 9g with no compensator is only
an annoyance (for a "typical pilot" not for me or thee). So it comes
down to acceleration and light lag (since we are assuming lasers).

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 20:16:09 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: TL & the Darrians

In mail you write:

> No, I'm perfectly aware of the difference. In fact, one of my pet peeves
> are Traveller authors who is _not_ aware of the difference and blithely
> assume that (for example) just because surgery didn't become really 
> developed on Earth until late 19th Century then surgery is a TL 4+
> phenomenon. Actually, all you need to perform (fairly) successful surgery
> is a sharp knife, the ability to boil water plus _knowledge_ of sterile
> procedures (Well, a good painkiller wont hurt). Which means that you can 
> _implement_ surgery at TL 1, even if you can't discover it until TL 4 (a 
> very iffy 'even', btw.).

Surgery was discovered at about TL0. Things like trephination existed.
The trick is, flint tools are essentially sterile if you use them right
after they are chipped (which is what you'd do because you want your
*sharpest* tools for something important). And hunter/gatherer
populations have very little disease running around loose. So your
chances of survival of even something this extreme is pretty good.

Once you get settled populations, there are more people to harbor
disease, and add in metal tools, and things rapidly get worse.

> So I have no quarrel with the Darrians being unable to implement TL 16
> technology just after the _Maghiz_ (in fact, I would have trouble with
> them being able to do so). And I don't have any trouble with them being
> unable to implement it for centuries thereafter. What I can't accept is
> that they would be unable to implement it for millenia thereafter UNLESS
> the knowledge entirely disappeared in the _Maghiz_. Which is what the
> module _Darrians_ says happened. Even in 1100 there are aspects of their
> TL 16 artifacts that the Darrians can't understand. Well and good. But
> _Darrians_ also state that one of their five biggest universities survived
> the _Magihz_ intact and assisted in the rebuilding of Darrian. Universities
> are repositories of knowledge. So how did this university manage to
> selectively lose some information completely when it survived intact?

Easy. I can speak from experience here. The university *won't have* all
the info. Most *technology* (as opposed to science) tends to involve
trade secrets. For example, any chemistry class will tell you the
melting point of silicon. And if you go to work for a company that
produces hyperpure silicon for semiconductor use, and work in the right
department, you'll learn that the figure in the books is *wrong*. The
correct figure is a trade secret!

The university will have the *principles* things are based on, but the
details of making them work is another matter. Also, the details and
even some of the principles for older tech levels tend to get lost. So
they'd have to re-invent a lot of the intermediate technology. 

They also had more immediate problems, like trying to *survive* with
the high tech gone. Hit all of earth with a good mag pulse *now* and
we'd lose most cities because there'd be no way to feed them. And the
farmers couldn't harvest or transport food without tractors and trucks.

And even in the US we are *lucky* in that we have people who can
*remember* how to do it without the machinery. For the Darrians it'd be
like us *having* to learn how to make stone tools to survive. Sure, a
few people know how, and others know it is *possible*. But not enough
to save more than a tiny fraction of the population.

> I can't come up with any scenario that allows a university to survive
> yet destroys the knowledge it contains. Can you?

Like I said, the trick is that universities *don't* contain state of
the art tech knowledge.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 18:49:49 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Sensor strength analysis

In mail you write:

> So, for some real-world examples:
>
> Passive detection:
>   Rcvd power = Target strength - 20logR
>
> Active detection, omnidirectional 'ping':
>   Rcvd power = Signal strength
>                   - 20logR             // Trip to the target
>                   - TA                 // Target albedo, proportion reflected
>                   - 20logR             // Scattered signal back to own ship
>              = SS - TA - 40logR
>   TA for a perfect mirror is 0; for a stealthy craft, perhaps -40.
>
> Active detection, beamed signal (e.g., ladar, targeting laser):
>   Rcvd power = Signal strength
>                   - 2logR               // Well-focussed beam
>                   - TA
>                   - 20logR              // Scattered signal back to own ship
>              =  SS - TA - 22logR
>
> It seems a little weird at first, but trust me, db is the only reasonable
> way to talk about sensor performance.  Once you get used to it, you'll
> never go back...

Craig, I think you've done the list (and hopefully the *game*) a great
service with this post.

With this, all we need to figure sensor stuff (other than range) is:

Passive sensors:

1. the target's "emission profile". That's the radiated power in each
   sensor "band" (that is in the range of wavelengths a given sensor is
   good for).
2. the background's "emission profile".
3. the sensor's sensitivity (minimum signal it can detect, in dB)

Note that a ship *can* be detected if it is enough *below* the
background in a given band. But that *may* require a fourth parameter
(selectivity?).

Active Sensors:

1. the target's "reflection profile" (ie albedo in each band)
2. The background's emission profile.
3. The sensor's sensitivity.
4. The sensor's power.
5. the sensor's "focus" (ie the narrowness of the beam or lack thereof)

This looks to me like it could be handled simply by having the sensor
data (sensitivity for passive sensors, sensitivity, power, and focus
for active) as part of the sensor info you record, the ship's emmision
profile as part of the ship data, and the "backrground" emission's as
part of the system data.

For *design* rules, sensitivity in each band should cost more according
to some reasonable progression. And in some bands, it'll require bigger
antennas. There should also be a max limit at each TL, and an
*absolute* limit (one photon = ???? dB).

Likewise, power takes size and money. "Focus" takes money, I don't know
if it affects size much.

Emmission control should again vary by tech level, but I think that the
rule should be that you can't reduce your total emitted power, only
change the band and to some extent the direction. And you can't change
EM emissions into gravitic or neutrino emissions.

This fits the real world. Black paint and radar absorbent material just
take the optical and radar emissions and turn them into heat....

Oh yeah, I think communication ranges should use the same rules!

So the bands would be something like this:

Gravitic: Mass detectors, CG detectors, Thruster plate detectors (I'm
	allowing for the likely idea that you can distinguish between
	these three things, but they are all the same basis stuff
	"gravity-like" radiation)
Neutrino: neutrino sensors
Particle radiation: geiger counters, etc. Mostly useful for detecting
	solar flates of particle beam "near misses".
EM radiation: This should be broken down into individual bands.
	1. long wave (any radio that will pentrate water/gas giant
		atmosphere to reasonable depths)
	2. medium wave (any radio that will pentrate a planetary ionisphere)
	3. short wave (anything up to a few cm wavelength)
	4. radar (cm to mm wavelength)
	5. IR (do we need sub-bands?)
	6. Optical
	7. UV 
	8. X-ray/gamma ray

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 07:05:54 -0400
From: 34zbtxq@cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu (Susan M. Shock)
Subject: The Half-Die

I would personally like to thank Marc MIller and Imperium Games for not
invalidating the $3.50 I spent on d3's when T4 came out, Now my d3's don't
have to languish along side the various other forms of polyhedral dice I no
longer use. Thanks!
                        Allen Shock

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 13:33:04 MET
From: "Volker A. Greimann" <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
Subject: Re: M:0 map and what happened to Zhunastu Enterprises?

- -> On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Volker A. Greimann wrote:
- -> 
- -> > However i have a lot of problems with the sector data and the map.
- -> > The map is almost useless to me, since ist leaves out most of the 
- -> > relevant information, like the Starport. How can one leave out the 
- -> > starports in a referee-only book?
- -> 
- -> We (CORE) prepared a set of data and maps, per instructions, for M0.  We 
- -> were told that FS would include our data as well.  Instead, it was decided 
- -> that our data and maps should be removed, and the FS data and maps put 
- -> in.  Thus, what you are seeing in M0 is actually the data and maps 
- -> created by Marc Miller for the First Survey product.
:-( It's sad this is! Hopefully, they include the correct data on the 
web page soon!
 
- -> > One further Question: What will happen to Zhunastu enterprises? Since 
- -> > it won't be there as a MegaCorp in 1105+ anymore, there's room for 
- -> > speculation. Did it go bankrupt (not likely) or was it destroyed with 
- -> > the death of Cleon the Mad or didn't it survive the Civil war (again, 
- -> > not likely, since the Civil war didn't affect the private sector 
- -> > that much!). Son what happened?
- -> 
- -> You'll find out in a future Milieu product. :)
Got...to buy....stuff!!!!
I hope IG doesn't go down the road of "buy this latest product to 
understand the data in the last". Ad Astra,

V.A.G.       
- ------  Volker A. Greimann, also known as: Grei5001@uni-trier.de  ----
- -- Am Weidengraben 86,C6 - 54296 Trier - Germany - T+F: +49651148846 -
- ---- Student of Law, Gamer, Illuminatus Primus, Slayer of Windows95 --
- -----  "Don't hold me up: I am just barely ahead of insanity!!!" -----

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 23:30:07 +1200
From: Andrew Vallance <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
Subject: Yet more Pigeons

>Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 13:47:07 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>
>Subject: Re: Fighters Again (Long) And Pigeons

>  The WWII pigeon bomb was actually an American idea, developed by the
>well-known Dr. B. F. Skinner, of operant conditioning fame.  He trained
>pigeons to peck at the center of a picture (aerial photo of a factory, let
>us say).  In the bomb, the pigeon would peck at a little viewsceen that
>showed a picture of the ground below transmited through lenses.  Since the
>pigeon pecked at the center of the factory, if the image shifted off
>center the pecking shifted off center and the guidance mechanism of the
>bomb would correct course so the picture was in the center of the screen
>again.

This does sound like the device I saw mentioned. Apparently it was evaluated
by the RAF but rejected as inhumane. I didn't know who developed it.

>  The system was rather ingeneous, using simple feedback mechanisms to
>keep things on course, and in the few trial runs the bomb worked rather
>well.  The rejection of the system had more to do with the mindset of the
>military officers involved rather than any love of pigeons - they just
>thought the whole idea was silly and refused to fund it further.  Perfect
>way to give a low-tech society precision-guided munitions.

I was struck by the simplicity of the system. I found it amongst a book on
weird military ideas that never made it. There were some real jems in it:
The french idea in 1st WW to use falcons to intercept messenger pigeons, the
Brazilian wire guided torpedo of 1910 (it involved a flag and two spools of
piano wire), the British idea of dealing with submarines by using swimmers
with hammers to smash in their periscopes, or trained seagulls to defecate
on them (I kid you not!), the Austrian steam tank of the 1880's (abandoned
because it frightened the Emperors horse). It would appear that the British
came with or seriously looked at more of these weird ideas than anybody
else, having a seemingly endless supply of eccentric backroom boffins and
equally eccentric military commanders willing to give ideas a go. How does
this relate to traveller? Not much really other than a vague comment that
the in amongst all the weird and wonderful ideas where some good ones and
that the eccentric British also came up with more of these too.

  Andrew etc.
    a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz

****************************************************************************
  Be pure, Be strong, Behave
****************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 05:24:59 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

Anders Backman wrote:
> 
> >What sorts of operating systems are there? None that we would
> >recognize. Operating systems, as we know them, will operate without
> >much direct interaction with the user. Users will use complex VR
> >interfaces to get things done.
>  I do NOT think that everyday users will interface with VR systems. They
> will interface with people like artificial constructs that you talk to more
> or less like an aide or a secretary but with broad and deep expertise. 

Now, how do you envision these constructs working? What do they
look like? 
- -- 
Erwin Fritz
Unix/NT/LAN Guy
Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd.
http://www.glja.com

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 14:13:58 +0200
From: Nicolas LEJEUNE <nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr>
Subject: Re: Known Bright Star List for the Alpha Leonis/Crucis Sector

Harold D. Hale wrote:

>Those of us who are working on bringing the Alpha Leonis/Crucis
>Sector up to date both in terms of the New Era and astronomically
>speaking know what this is about.  
>
>   For the rest of you, I've been working with Henbest and Couper's "The
>Guide to the Galaxy" and some other sources in an effort to identify
>familar and not so familiar stars that should be located in the Alpha
>Leonis/Alpha Crucis Sector and determine where they should be located on
>a sector map.  Below is the result of my work: 

>0125  Beta Pictoris              A5 V
[...]
>2834  Beta Columbae (Wezn)       K2III

>Any comments, suggestions, corrections, additions, or any other input
>regarding this list should be sent to hdhale@siscom.net

Interesting but I've check yesterday where all those stars where in the
map. What do we do with those data. All the DGP stellar data are wrong. Do
we change thoses. There is also two stars which are in an empty Hex. Do we
have to move or  create a world in this Hex??

Suggestions?
- -----------
Nicolas LEJEUNE
   Engineer, Paris, France
   Traveller (TNE), and WhiteWolf RPG
   Mailto:nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 14:09:37 +0200
From: Nicolas LEJEUNE <nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

Erwin Fritz wrote:

>On the other hand, you could use optical lasers for messaging over
>short distances. This is both more secure and less prone to
>noise than omnidirectional transmission.

This is already used is some cases. I've worked on the design and
installation of such a device. We had to connect two building across a
road. We should have dig through the street (very expensive, needs lots of
licenses) or put small IR lasers on the roof. Very cheap indeed. The only
phisycal trouble is birds cutting the link :-). The solution : Use a high
power laser. If a bird cross the beam, it would be cut in half, so the link
wouldn't be stopped (joke)

IMO, in future, those kind of communication (focused ones) would be used a
lot. The trouble with radio waves is that the bandwidth is not extensive.
There is a limit. Assuming that the data traffic would explode, radio
broadcasting would only be used for Point-Multipoint transmission (TV,
Radio, ...).=20

You cannot increase the rate in a fixed bandwidth to quite infinte nor you
can increase the number of channels in the same bandwidth to infinite. With
focused communications (masers, lasers, or more simply cable wires...) you
just have to increase the number of emmiting devices or cables.=20


Here is my point of view on the communications

* Inside rooms : IR LED or lasers because of the comfort of using and the
very cheap price

* Inside buildings : Fiber optical networks between computers and orther
automated devices. They are easy to install during the building. Depends
largely on the complexity and the needed bandwidth.

* Static small range : The use of lasers would be very popular. Any one
could intall such device for a static range (easy aiming). Cost : very low

* Static long range : For town to town communications. Generaly centralized
on several communications points owned by companies or governments. Use of
Maser and Lasers. For more than 50% watered worlds, the use of Fiber
optical cables should be the best choice. Ora maybe low orbits satellites
with contragrav to maintain stationnary position above oceans.

* Mobile personnal : use of radio waves (as for Mobile phones). Cheap to
install, limited bandwith. Solution : Cells. Intracell communication =3D
radio waves, Intercell communication =3D previous case. As the population
increase the cell's size reduce to "gain" in bandwith. If heavy
communication in needed, Cells can be 10m large. In very low populated
area, cells can be handles by low orbits satelites which should be cheap
from TL12. Same system as Iridium network

* Mobile long range : As for starships. Maser of laser commo. Quite
expensive bexcause it has to be connected to a sensor to follow the moving
body. Radio waves for emergency and broadcasts communications.

* One way communications : Regular satellites. BTW, this type of
communications would certainlmy disapear because of the increase on
interactivity of programs. So the communcations systems would have to
handle both ways of  communications and have to be very delay sensitive.
Geosationnary satelits would certainly be useless for this type of
communication because of the delay. They would be replaced by low orbit
satellites with or without contragrav, or even better grounded networks


Now, Here is my point of view on the look for pre-collapse era

* Virtual reality : mainly 3D and for entertainement. But very present in
family groups. There would be virtual bars to meet other people (Imagine a
Traveller virtual lounge where we could met each other and have real
discussion instead of typing on this ~#*$^@=A7 keyboard). This would make
communications more user friendly.

* Professionnal computers. Virtual Reality or not, that is the question.
Take a look of the use of internet: Everyone want to have Internet at home,
and then at work. But is it productive to have Internet? I would say NOT AT
ALL. Ok, you can easily get informations but you loose much time to search
those data, and to walk around some web sites. Many companies don't want to
have Internet because it reduces the productivity of its staff. Intranet :
yes, Internet : no (yes if controled).
So VR? I disagree with Anders Backman :
> We have consumer priced VR stuff today but nobody
> is making accounting packages, wordprocessors, data analysis siftware for
> VR. VR is good for games and perhaps porn
It's too soon for VR, this is only tries, prototypes. There is no market
yet. Have you seen the VoicePad software program from IBM. It's not usable
in a professionnal environement but in few decades we would surely have
those kind of software replacing the keyboards. Now, why not connecting the
software to a Virtual secretary. This would be much better than a blank
sheet of (virtual) paper. BTW, I didn't have noticed but we are working on
virtual paper and using virtual mail.
IMO, VR would be used in offices but not at a so advanced way as the
private use (except in specific cases). Companies always uses new tools
with a delay. Priviate use is more a question of fashion.
TL12-15 computers definitely won't have any keyboards

* Invisible devices : Many devices have chips in their design. For example,
let's take a train wagon. It doesn't seem to need some calculation
capacity. Wrong, the TGV (French high speed train) has three 68000 chips
per wagon... I think this is the way that the Viruses have struck the most
heavily. Because most of the peopole didn't supected than the doors of the
lift where controled by a small computer which could be infected
(...crunch...)


Now, Here is my point of view on the look for TNE

* All the networks are detroyed, infected, or potentially infected. So
their use would be severly reduced. Computer should be more Personnal
Computers. The Unix type computers would be banished (because of the
easyness to start a process from a remote location). The Java type
applications would be highly dangerous. The only data that would be
exchaged by regular networks would be DATA files or eventually source codes
which could be checked before compilation.

* VR which need a huge bandwidth would be quite disapeared. Computer use
would be reserved  for specialists.

* Invisible devices : all destroyed, burned by the surviving people.
Replaced by human handle, eventually helped by computer calculations.

* New architecture : IMO The programmable computers would be converted to
nonprogrammable calculators, built for specific needs. The jump computer
cannot be used as the sensor/Navigationnal computer. The exchanged data
cannot change their nature because it's built like this. Sensor computer
can only give coordinates of detected taregets to the Turret/MFD systems.
The Nav computer can only specify courses to a destination point. Its
planet database is the only upgradable item. The maint computer has several
modules which depends of the equipement on the ship. A starship computer
has different componnents for redundancy. If you need another function you
cannot reprogram the computer you have to get new boards and cards.=20
All those systems are NOT DYNAMIC because a dynamic architecture is easyier
to invade than a static one. This architecture is NOT the ulitmate parade
to Virus, but it SEEMS safer for the crew (I don't inverted it, it's
written somewhere in a TNE book).=20
Oh, i forgot. The communicatior are definitely NOT connected to one of the
computer even if it's not programmable for obvious reasons.


IMHO of course


- -----------
Nicolas LEJEUNE
   Engineer, Paris, France
   Traveller (TNE), and WhiteWolf RPG
   Mailto:nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1163
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest      Wednesday, April 9 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1164



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Sylea --> Capitol
Re: Energy Propagation For Sensors
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Re: Was: Fighters, Now: Boats (Off-Topic)_
AAB Repositories
Re: Sensor strength analysis
New products: 1st impression reviews
Goldrushgames
Subject: Fighters - Revisited III
Re: Honest Review of Emperor's Arsenal (long)
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Re: Pigeon Power!
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1162
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Re: Sensor strength analysis
Re: Shields?
Re: Vargr Miniatures

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 08:24:41 -0400
From: Hugh Johnson <ratling@csrlink.net>
Subject: Re: Sylea --> Capitol

At 03:35 PM 4/8/97 MET, you wrote:
>Zhodani agents report that K.C. Komosky wrote:
>
>->  Here's a question: does anyone know when Sylea was renamed as
>->  Capitol? Od does anyone have any educated guesses when this might
>->  happen?
>
>I always wondered about this, too.
>Additional, i found a reference in old MT lib-data as to Capital 
>being in hex 0508. Checking M:0 i find that hex empty! Anyone???????
>
>Ad Astra,

	0508 is refering to the hex on a subsector scale.  If you look at the Core
Sector, Capital is in hex 2118 which is in the Core Subsector.

Hugh Johnson    mailto:ratling@csrlink.net   <:8}}}---

"Anything that happens, happens.  Anything that, in happening, causes
something else to happen, causes something else to happen.  Anything that,
in happening, causes itself to happen again, happens again.  It doesn't
necessarily do it in chronological order, though."      -- Douglas Adams,
Mostly Harmless

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 14:39:55 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Energy Propagation For Sensors

>> We will also say that for this TL X passive sensor to detect the
>> radiating signal the signal level must be greater than .5 microwatts.
>
>And there is where your argument falls apart. Check out the signal
>levels required by current detectors. Especially by IR detectors.
>
>--
>Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
> shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
>leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

Does anybody have a ballpark figure here? I've lost my radioastronomy books
when I moved. All I know is that the Mark I eyeball sensor can detect
individual photons at peak solar wavelength under ideal conditions but IR
photons are obviously much weaker.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 14:46:38 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

>Now, how do you envision these constructs working? What do they
>look like?
 Either flatscreen talking heads or holographic talking heads or at higher
TLs more elaborate fullperson renderings. Very good voice that is able to
read/use nuances in speech etc.

The point is to make the computers less obtrusive and the PARC Xerox user
interface labs are working along those lines as well (XEROX PARC were the
ones that invented Etherner, the mouse, windows, icons, pull down menus
etc, basically everything we take for granted in computers today). They've
built a system where for instance text input is done by hand on a piece of
paper that get OCRed by a overhead camera. The main push was to make the
computer more like a well trained british butler ie less obtrusive.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 00:41:55 +1200
From: Andrew Vallance <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Was: Fighters, Now: Boats (Off-Topic)_

>Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 09:20:29 +0100
>From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
>Subject: Re: Was: Fighters, Now: Boats (Off-Topic)_

>>I'm willing to believe that an aircraft carrier can outrun a speedboat.  I
>>believe a ship's speed is, at least in part, determined by its length at
>>the waterline, although I can't say I understand the physics of this
>>phenomenon (I think it has something to do with the ratio of drag at the
>>air/water interface, versus the overall volume of the hull - which might
>>have something to do with the speed of submarines, too - but I'm really
>>in, uh, over my head, hydrodynamically-speaking, and am probably at least
>>partially wrong).  Racing yachts are often built with a "reverse transom,"
>>to increase their length at the waterline, without increasing their length
>>overall (which, I believe, is important for determining which races
>>they can legally be entered into, for arcane reasons).

>For simplicity a boat with a given mass thus a given displacement volume
>the longer the waterline the smaller the frontal area and thus less drag
>keeping draft fixed. This is not entirely true but good enough to account
>for larger vessels generally go faster in water.

The crutial factor is not pure length, its length to beam ratio, thus a craft
with a ratio of say 1:10 will go faster than one with a ratio of 1:6. Its
generally easier to get a better ratio with a bigger ship (hulls can only
be so narrow). If you think of the hull as a knife it helps. The transom
works by using the water flow around the hull to effectively increase the
ratio at high speeds, at the cost of creating vacuum drag at low speeds.
Transoms also require the rudders to be placed further aft to get the same
manueverabilty. The other way to get more speed from a given hull is to use
a hard chined planner hull to create hydrodynamic lift and pull the hull out
of the water (hydrofoils are an extreme example of this principle), but this
has even worse affects on your craft at low speeds and is generally restricted
to small craft.

  Andrew etc.
    a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz

****************************************************************************
  Be pure, Be strong, Behave
****************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 09:20:55 -0400
From: Hugh Johnson <ratling@csrlink.net>
Subject: AAB Repositories

	Looking at all the AAB repositories in FS I was wondering how many of
these are still accessable?  I'm assuming that they were established during
the First Imperium.  So how well did these facilities fare during the ROM
and the long night?  I would assume that they had been either plundered for
the information and artifacts in the museums or had been used by the worlds
containing them to maintain a fairly stable TL.  It is possible that pocket
empires could have form around these repositories?  Is this how Sylea
gained prominence?

Hugh Johnson    mailto:ratling@csrlink.net   <:8}}}---

"Anything that happens, happens.  Anything that, in happening, causes
something else to happen, causes something else to happen.  Anything that,
in happening, causes itself to happen again, happens again.  It doesn't
necessarily do it in chronological order, though."      -- Douglas Adams,
Mostly Harmless

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 15:27:03 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Sensor strength analysis

>Craig, I think you've done the list (and hopefully the *game*) a great
>service with this post.
>
>With this, all we need to figure sensor stuff (other than range) is:
>
>Passive sensors:
>
>1. the target's "emission profile". That's the radiated power in each
>   sensor "band" (that is in the range of wavelengths a given sensor is
>   good for).
>2. the background's "emission profile".
>3. the sensor's sensitivity (minimum signal it can detect, in dB)
>
>Note that a ship *can* be detected if it is enough *below* the
>background in a given band. But that *may* require a fourth parameter
>(selectivity?).
>
>Active Sensors:
>
>1. the target's "reflection profile" (ie albedo in each band)
>2. The background's emission profile.
>3. The sensor's sensitivity.
>4. The sensor's power.
>5. the sensor's "focus" (ie the narrowness of the beam or lack thereof)
>

I've been using such a system (and posted it to the list) for about 5 years
now. Give each sensor type (optical,radar,mass,neutrino) a factor, give
each ship a profile with factors for (optical, radar, mass, neutrino) and
some rules for it. The total lack of interest in my system last time I
posted it reduced my interest in writing it for the list (I use my own
design system etc so some modifications has to be made) but I'll repost it
if there's any interest.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 22:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Trent Smith <tfsmith@POMONA.EDU>
Subject: New products: 1st impression reviews

     I found myself with some extra time this afternoon, so I went to the
game store to see if they'd gotten the new Traveller products in, and,
sure enough, they had.  After reading Kenneth Bearden's glowing
recommendation, I couldn't not buy the Emperor's Arsenal, and since I was
there, they had it, and $13 isn't really all that much, I went ahead and
bought the Game Screen too.  The store owner complimented my choice and
made me open up the Screen so he could look at it.  What follows is my 1st
impression review, in the same format as earlier ones.

PRODUCT          Content  Production  Usefulness  Value        Overall
Emperor's Arsenal   A         A-          A        B+ (14-18)    A-
Game Screen         B         A-          B-       B  (8-10)     B

CONTENT is the actual written words of the book, PRODUCTION is the
editing, layout, artwork, and general physical appearance, USEFULNESS is
how much I think I'll use this book in actual play, VALUE is how well I
think the price of the book matches the quality of what's inside, the
number in parenthesis is what I think would be an appropriate price,
OVERALL is the average of the preceding four, weighted equally.

COMMENTS
GENERAL:  Both of these books reminded me very much of Classic Traveller,
both the content and the level of the production.  I consider this to be
a good thing, because while CT's production doesn't really compare to the
full-color gloss of many recent product's, it's actually a large
improvement over the rest of the T4 line so far.

EMPEROR'S ARSENAL: Kenneth pretty much said it all in his review, and from
a quick skim-through, I agree-- this is a very good product, and pretty
much a must-by for any Traveller fan.  
     Since people haven't really mentioned the layout of the book, I'll
describe it briefly.  Each weapon description is a boxed article
containing a 1-2 paragraph description of the weapon's specifications and
possibly some anecdotal or historical info.  In many cases this text is
accompanied by a small picture of the weapon.  Below this, highlighted
white-text on black, are the game-stats of the weapon, which are also
repeated in a master-table for each chapter and a huge master-table at the
back of the book.  These tables are laid out with alternating blank and
shaded lines, a necessity to keep them readable.  In addition, the
chapters of weapons are interspersed with articles, with a standard text
layout like the rest of the T4 line.  
     Compared to the CSC, which was nothing but pages and pages of
barely-formatted text with an occasional full page of illustrations, this
layout is ingenious.  One slight disappointment is that it seems the color
plates of the early books are a thing of the past.  Not that I really
cared that much, except that the price of the books has stayed the same
with or without them-- if we're paying for them, we might as well get
them.
     Anyhow, in addition to having first-class content, this is the first
T4 product so far that actually has good layout and production-- it looks
like it was made by professionals.  There are a couple of minor errors
(missing boldface, a weapon description misplaced) and the canon-bending
(or is that breaking?) inlclusion of TL13-15 equipment for the 1st & 2nd
Imperiums, but these are very minor complaints in the face of a really
superior product.  Now, if the price were lower this would be perfect!

TRAVELLER GAME SCREEN:  I don't normally use a game screen as such while
actually playing-- I have nothing to hide and want to keep an eye on my
players, but I still like having all the important charts in one place, as
well as the extras that are usually included, so I usually end up buying
game screens anyway.  This package contains a four-panel medium-stock
screen, an 8pp mini-adventure, and a cover-sheet, the back of which
repeats the handouts from the adventure booklet.  Not a lot for $13, but
the contents themselves seem to be worthwhile so I'm not really
complaining.
     Starting with the screen itself, it compiles most of the charts from
the T4 rulebook (except char-gen, starship construction, animal
encounters, and a couple others) all completely re-formatted to be
readable and look professional (including shading of alternate lines,
better use of italics, boldface, and footnotes, and more consistent and
efficient spacing).  The difference, just in presentation, in a few cases
(trade and commerce, the skill listings) is pretty drastic and makes
previously worthless tables valuable.  There are a couple of small
complaints: there should have been a skills-by-cluster listing, and an
explanation of UWP codes would have been more useful than the equipment
list, but overall they did a good job with these.
     Some tables are different, too.  The Universal Task Profile
(as presented here on 022397) is included, along with its charts for
Reactions and Uncertainty.  The Rumors table has been completely
restructured.  An Overall Ranges chart seems to be new.  Unfortunately,
the space-combat panel is exactly the same (content-wise) as the rulebook,
including the old difficulty values and the error in sandcaster ranges, as
well as accidentally formatting the Order of Events listing to look like a
table.  However, these are the only errors I've noticed (value-judgments
of the task difficulties, etc, aside), and I don't intend to use the
rulebook space combat system anyway, so that's no biggie.
     The mini-adventure "Memory Alpha" seems to be an updated CT
tournament, but it now takes place in Core Sector in year 50.  The content
of the adventure is okay, and if handled well by a creative ref could work
pretty well, but the premise makes it hard to adapt to ongoing campaigns.
I'm willing to give it some credit, though, for having more of a sense of
time/place/background than any of the other thus-far published T4
adventures (in the rulebook or JTAS25).  I'm eagerly awaiting "Anomalies"
and "The Long Way Home" to finally get a T4 adventure that's more than 6pp
long.  The maps are drawn from "First Survey" and share that book's
uselessness (forgot to check Gov-Law) in that 1) most of them are blank,
even though the background specifically mentions that the PC ship has been
trading in this area for years, and 2) the layout doesn't match the UWP
presented on the screen.  However, that's really more of a complaint about
that product, and only tangentially affects this one.
    So, in summary, the screen itself combines many tables in a
seemingly-useful arrangement and much improved formatting over the
rulebook.  The adventure is very short, but considering that is otherwise
pretty decent.  I didn't really expect a whole lot out of this, and it's
maybe a little better than what I was expecting.  A good (if somewhat
expensive) GM screen, but nothing more than that.

So, definitely buy the Emperor's Arsenal; it's the best T4 product so far.
Take or leave the game screen, depending on if a game screen is something
you want-- not a major waste, but nothing you can't live without, either.

And that's it for my first impression.  As I take a closer look (which
with past products has meant "as I uncover more errors") these might
change, but this is how things look after a quick skim/read-through.


Trent Smith

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 15:28:56 MET
From: "Volker A. Greimann" <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
Subject: Goldrushgames

Has anybody got their URL? I was trying to find it but seem to have 
lost it.
Does anybody know when their T4 books are due?

Ad Astra,

V.A.G.       
- ------  Volker A. Greimann, also known as: Grei5001@uni-trier.de  ----
- -- Am Weidengraben 86,C6 - 54296 Trier - Germany - T+F: +49651148846 -
- --- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/4061 ---
- ---- Student of Law, Gamer, Illuminatus Primus, Slayer of Windows95 --
- -----  "Don't hold me up: I am just barely ahead of insanity!!!" -----

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 19:35:40 -0400
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Subject: Fighters - Revisited III

Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au> wrote:

>>Understood.  Though im begining to believe there effectiveness in a
traveller universe is limited.<<

Do not give up hope, see below.=20


> In Traveller, fighters have no weapons that can cripple any big ship.
> Those factor 1 and 2 missiles will not even dent the sand thrown up by
> any capital ship. The EM energy alone could blind most fighters small
> computers and sensors. (In space you have to have huge antenna for
> resolution) so you would have to get VERY close in space. That means
> that the big ship has all the time in the world to pick you off.
> Starting at about 150,000 km fighters would be targets. The faster they
> go to close range, the more predictable their path would be, easier to
> hit.=3D20
>=3D20

>>This seems to be the case in the traveller universe, but im begining to
wonder how "realistic" this is.  It coudnt be that difficult to build a
nice ship killing (small) weapon - could it?  Also, missiles seem to be
weaker then the real world.<<

It is very realistic, given our understanding and current technology.
And no, I am sure that the brilliant minds at 3I research centers are
busy working away right now. See below.
>>
 [convincing examples snipped]<<

Thanks!

>>
True.  So we come to the crux of it all, apart from low intensity
battles
(or soft targets) even modern aircraft are defunc?  I find it hard to
believe, its all the more worse since the last serious naval conflict
was
over 50 years ago.
<<

Yep, you got it, its just that the boys in the fighter seats have not
been told. Some expectations placed the losses in Europe at over 90% of
ALL aircraft within 1 week of WWIII starting. (that was a long time ago
when the cold war was going full on)

Many in the area of strategic planning believe that the B-52 (or Boeing
747) will be the best fighter in the next major war. Load it up with a
huge rotary rack of homing missiles and orbit next to the AWACs.
Anything that gets within 100 miles is gone. Most fighters today are
designed to fight the last war.=20

That is not to say that the Fighter is not needed. No, just the
opposite! We have entered the era of low level regional war. No one can
go around blowing everything in the sky away. (for example the Iran
Airbus over the Gulf) Everything will be controlled from the air. The
Gulf War is a great example of how it can work. Send smart missiles in,
blow the air defense away, send fighters and bombers in to check on the
situation and maintain air supremacy. Destroy anything else at your
leisure.=20

Which is exactly how the 3I will probably use them. In low level / low
threat conflicts where destruction is to be kept to a minimum. In other
words, PC area of operations. I would have to say that the PC=92s will
probably see more fighters than big ships. What better way to keep track
of what is moving in the system?

> In Traveller that means that you will have to stand off with ship
> killing missiles that DO NOT EXIST and launch at targets locked on with
> sensors that DO NOT EXIST while hiding behind some horizon or cover tha=
t
> DOES NOT EXIST to be effective.  So in Traveller, as we understand the
> technology and weapons, fighters are reduced to being a small boat with
> machine guns that somebody else mentioned.=3D20
>=3D20

>>>Which is a shame, it couldnt be that hard to introduce a weapon of
substantial power.  Sensors are a moot point, fighters dont need
adavanced
sensors, just good targeting combined with smart weapons.  Horizons i
think may be offset by some keen weapons and high manvr., which
traveller
also seems to lack.<<<

It is a shame. But can we hand wave some ideas for how to make fighters
more effective? Lets play around with some ideas:

First: Tactics

Lets say that the fighters, using high tech, high speed computers form
up into a close (lets say inches) formation. They also form a data link
for targeting and is controlled by the fighter leader. As they close
with the ship the fighters start to form into geometric patterns that
constantly change. The mass will only appear in one place for a instant,
and then morphs into another as they close with the big ship. The
targeting computer has a hard time seeing past the swarm and ID=92s it as
one target. But its center of mass is constantly shifting. This way the
fighters can close without being destroyed. As most of the beams will be
going in between the fighters.

Add in some passive arrays and a parallel processing and the sensors
would even be fairly good and the entire swarm would be one large
antenna.=20

Then throw in some ECM or Masking for good measure just to blur the
lines even more and presto, you have a way to close with out having all
the fighters destroyed. You may loose a few but the computers would
automatically close the holes in the system.

Hey, you could even throw in some drones that act as fillers for the
squadron, and/or weapon pods. Which brings me to my next point.

Second: Weapons

Missiles do not seem to be a very viable option for the fighter. So lets
look at energy weapons. They will have to be long range, as no matter
how good the fighters are and moving around, the big ship will pick them
off at close range. And them have to be powerful enough to damage a
large ship. The current power requirements of the most powerful weapons
do not allow the fighter to carry them. But that assumes that the
fighter has to be able to fire the weapon continually. What if we give
the fighter only enough power for one shot through the use of some high
tech power storage. Picture a huge plasma gun or something. The fighter
swarm closes to 60,000 km and fires that weapon. 100% chance of a hit
due to the size of the large ship. Major damage and the fighters return
to the carrier and rearm for the next trip.

Just an idea that come to me on the long flight home.

Bob

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 07:13:52 -0700
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: Honest Review of Emperor's Arsenal (long)

At 09:45 AM 4/9/97 +0100, Anders Backman wrote:
>>If think that if they do something right, then we should be just as
>>passionate about telling everyone about it.
>>
>>Too many times, people focus on the negatives and forget about the
>>positives.
>
>What exactly good has IG done except the T-shirts and mousepads?
>All there products are contradicory buggy and only improving compared to
>their earlier works. Try comparing any IG products to lets say Steve
>Jackson games. I stopped buying their stuff after reading rave reviews of
>CSC and finding it to be mostly crappy, bad art but with a few interesting
>tidbits ie the best so far.

I think it's important to remember the management change at IG.  This is
clearly having its good effects, but they won't be instant.  Changing the
past products is possible only by releasing updates, and changing the
course of the products as a whole is like, well, changing the course of a
1G freighter. :)

- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 07:13:47 -0700
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

At 09:34 AM 4/9/97 +0100, Anders Backman wrote:
>>        Comparisons to cyberpunk genre games start creeping in here,
>>leading to the 64,000 Cr question...why ISN'T Traveller cyberpunkish?
>
>Because it is based on SF literature that predates cyberpunk by a decade or
>two depending on wether you've read "Dra Adder" or not. I like the absence
>of cyberpunk in Traveller as cyberpunk seems to have so little workable
>ideas and so much cliche'. TNE however had the feel of cyberpunk so there
>you could insert cybernetic chainsaw arms and general nihilistic feel.

I agree with Anders as to why it's not there, but I wonder if the
hermetically sealed nature of the Traveller system is going to be a help or
a hindrance in the overall market.  I'm not saying it should be a cyberpunk
game (we've got too many of those as it is, and I can take only so much
nihilism), but in its image of computers, government, bioengineering,
nano-engineering, and even its vision of military units, doctrine, and
weapons, Traveller has maintained a decided 1970s big-iron, big-government,
big-product, big-war feel.

- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 16:34:09 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

>It's too soon for VR, this is only tries, prototypes. There is no market
>yet. Have you seen the VoicePad software program from IBM. It's not usable
>in a professionnal environement but in few decades we would surely have
>those kind of software replacing the keyboards. Now, why not connecting the
>software to a Virtual secretary. This would be much better than a blank
>sheet of (virtual) paper. BTW, I didn't have noticed but we are working on
>virtual paper and using virtual mail.
>IMO, VR would be used in offices but not at a so advanced way as the
>private use (except in specific cases). Companies always uses new tools
>with a delay. Priviate use is more a question of fashion.
>TL12-15 computers definitely won't have any keyboards

Exactly what I tried to get through!
There won't be any VR for normal computer use (goggles, gloves, suits et c.
Instead there'll be a virtual secretary you talk to that may or may not be
a hologram walking about. What I (and most people) call VR is the kind of
immersive VR where a compleat reality is fictiously created around you (the
R in VR) not a software simulation of something like wordprocessor software
which are loose sims of typewriters. In the future and especially in
Traveller you'll have virtual persons/employees that you interface by
talking, gesturing etc to be as humanlike and unobtrusive as possible.

DGP used these things at TL 16 but I forgot what they called them. Some
kind of personality simulation software to simulate a meeting with a person
that couldn't be there.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 10:52:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kenneth Winland <kwinland@chass.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: Pigeon Power!

	Howdy!

On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Eris Reddoch wrote:

> On 04/09/97 at 02:51 AM,  Andrew Vallance <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
> said:
> 
> > Incidently the during the 2nd WW the British developed a very effective
> > system of missile guidance based around trained pidgens, capable of
> > taking individual bridge supports over 1,000km. It was never deployed.
> > Apparently the British high command was heavy in bird fanciers, and as
> > the pidgen died, they considered it to be just not good form. The worlds
> > first (and only) PGM (Pidgen Guided Munition).
> 
> Hey! Did the British do that too?  In the states they trained pidgeons to
> guide glide bombs to their targets.  I think it was, the bahaviorist, BF
> Skinner's project.  I don't know if the project went past lab testing, but
> from what I've heard it would have worked very well.  Well except for the
> poor bird. ;->

	I thought it was chicken-guided?  I have footage of it somewhere.
It has Skinner droning on about something, and a mock-up of the guidance
system.  There was a small (primitive) TV screen in front of the chicken.
The chicken was trained to peck at certain silhouettes, such as those of
ships.  The bird would peck, and the bomb would realign itself according
to the stimuli on the small screen.  They continued working on it past
WWII, but captured German TV-Guided technology was better, and by '50 the
tubes were starting to get smaller.

	Laterish!

	Ken

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 09:04:54 -0600
From: Jon Goff <jongoff@et.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1162

> Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 10:36:51 PST
> From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
> Subject: Re: AWACS Starship (Re: Submarine Fighters)

> But that's the point. You *can't* mask it. Not in space. The 
> background is dead "black".

Not neccesarily so.  You should read about "Solar Wind", "Background
Radiation Levels," "Vacuum Polarization," and "Solar Flares."

> The ship is glowing "white". And any "mask" *near* the ship will 
> absorb the heat it is supposed to be blocking, which then makes *it* 
> start glowing.

Actually, the masks blur the heat dissipation, thus causing the IR 
signal to be harder to get a "lock" on.  Plus, if they haven't allready
figured that you are out there, you can easily blend in.  With the 
propagation of EM radiation over thousands of kilometers, it would be
easy to hide a ship.  

> Only if you repeal a bunch of the laws of physics.

Or if you use a bunch of the laws of physics that the poster obviously
hasn't looked into.

Jon

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 11:35:16 -0400
From: James Garriss <jpg@langley.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

At 08:22 AM 4/8/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Douglas <douglas@*teleport.com> writes:
>>I almost hate to ask, I know this has probably been discussed and I missed
>>the thread, but....
>>Where are the design rules for weapons?  Are the FF&S rules in effect for
>>T4?
>
> The small arms design rules for T4 is the Guns, Guns, and More Guns book.
>also known as Guns Cubed.

This isn't an IG product, is it?  Why not?  And who puts it out and where
can we find more info about them?

TIA,

 James Garriss                          System Engineer, MITRE               
 jpg@langley.mitre.org          http://www.cs.odu.edu/~garriss

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 18:07:31 +0200
From: Nicolas LEJEUNE <nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

Anders Backman wrote:

>Exactly what I tried to get through!

Sorry Anders, I read you article too fast. :-(


- -----------
Nicolas LEJEUNE
   Engineer, Paris, France
   Traveller (TNE), and WhiteWolf RPG
   Mailto:nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 11:07:42 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Sensor strength analysis

At 03:27 PM 4/9/97 +0100, anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman) wrote:
>>snip<<
>
>I've been using such a system (and posted it to the list) for about 5 years
>now. Give each sensor type (optical,radar,mass,neutrino) a factor, give
>each ship a profile with factors for (optical, radar, mass, neutrino) and
>some rules for it. The total lack of interest in my system last time I
>posted it reduced my interest in writing it for the list (I use my own
>design system etc so some modifications has to be made) but I'll repost it
>if there's any interest.
>
I would like to see your system.


- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 09:18:08 -0700
From: bri <bri@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Shields?

At 02:43 AM 3/26/97 PST, Leonard Erickson wrote:
<snip>
>Only trouble is, IR is one of the most popular areas for weapons grade
>lasers. And high powered masers can ruin your day. Pump enough power
>into *any* wavelength and it is dangerous. And anything from the
>microwaves on up can be made into a beam weapon suitable for use in space.
 The white globe could have a upper-limit on the amount of power it would
let pass through, be it selectivley or totalley. 
 If the latter, this would make for a interesting "We can't contact her,
she's under too much fire!" situation :)
bri <bri@teleport.com>

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 09:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Vargr Miniatures

Responding to Mark Bradley:

>Does anyone know of a good source for Vargr figures?  I'm looking for
>25mm paintable figures.

Post a message to Usenet asking for the old Grenadier "Alien Mercenaries"
figures. There are two Vargr figures per box. I've stockpiled a bunch of
these for my own campaign and they are excellent!

You may have to pay a bit through the nose for these, but IMO, they're
worth it. The box also includes two Aslans, two Droyne, a Hiver, a Virushi
and two K'kree.

Unfortunately, I don't know of any other figs that adequately sub for Vargr.

Best,

Chris

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1164
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest      Wednesday, April 9 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1165



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Honest Review of the T4 Referee's Screen
Missiles
Re: G Onset rate
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
History of the Geonee, Part 3.
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Fighters BB Killing Weapons
Re: TL advancement
Re: Boarding Actions
Re: Goldrushgames
A theoretical encounter with fighter support.(Fairly Long)
Re: Honest Review of the T4 Referee's Screen
Re: Missiles
EA et al...
Re: Fighters BB Killing Weapons
Fighters-just my .02Cr
Ground Support
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 14:03:34 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Honest Review of the T4 Referee's Screen

"Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com> wrote:

<<The back "cover" of this sheet has your typical sales info tatalizing
the reader to buy the product.  I have no problem with this, and this
is something that you see on just about every game package from every
RPG game company.  It's the stuff you read when you are deciding to
buy it or not.>>

At last! Does EA have this innovation too? Let's hope IG do more of this,
because they may get soe casual sales....

- --------------- Dom Mooney (dom@cybergoths.u-net.com)---------------
"The fall of Empire, Gentlemen, is a massive thing, however, and not easily
fought. It is dictated by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a
freezing of caste, a damming of curiousity - a hundred other factors."
                                 Hari Seldon - Azimov's "Foundation"

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 19:08:11 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
Subject: Missiles

Does anyone have some different missile-designs 
for T4.

Tommy Grav

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 11:17:21 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: G Onset rate

 
> Incorrect.  It is the rate of change of the angular momentum.  IOW, its how
> fast you can change direction.  For example - Bank and pull hard and you
> start turning, pull harder and you turn faster but pull more G's.  The

Banking isn't analogus to traveller at all.  Rotation is created by
offset use of attitude control thrusters.  The acceleration is given
by v^2/r, where v is the tangential velocity of the end of the ship
(2*pi*r/period_of_rotation).

> Changing direction quickly is a very big part of dogfighting (but not
> everything).  I will grant you that against a Capital Ship a fighter doesn't

This is true, but it's a function of structure and g-comp.  I  think
design rules should have something about this someplace.

- -Merrick

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 13:05:40 +0000
From: "Doctor Vince" <drvince@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

> I agree with Anders as to why it's not there, but I wonder if the
> hermetically sealed nature of the Traveller system is going to be a help or
> a hindrance in the overall market.  I'm not saying it should be a cyberpunk
> game (we've got too many of those as it is, and I can take only so much
> nihilism), but in its image of computers, government, bioengineering,
> nano-engineering, and even its vision of military units, doctrine, and
> weapons, Traveller has maintained a decided 1970s big-iron, big-government,
> big-product, big-war feel.
>

Yeah, but with Traveller, it is easy enough to change it. CT had 
megacorporations already, and the basic motivations for a dystopia 
like cyberpunk settings (overpopulation, greed, crime) are still 
there in selected spots. Rules for cybernetics are easily adapted 
from other games (personally, I just equate cyber with stat adds, 
depending on the system...for example, a cyberarm could be +1-3 Str, 
one arm only. The arm doesn't heal (at least not until tech 15+) on 
it's own, and it might have add-ins for greater functionality (the 
aforementioned chain-saw hand comes to mind).

All Cyberpunk is, is a darker feel in your SF with (argueably) more 
realistic (or more character-centered) plots (not to mention 
technical trappings). People who like the Scout campaigns, or classic 
space opera don't like it, and that's okay. People who do like c-punk 
shouldn't have any problems adapting Traveller to suit. It isn't very 
hard at all...

I wonder if IG would be interested in a "CyberTraveller" supplement? 
Heck, I have the working notes already...


VC
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The passion of lovers is for death...
                                    -Bauhaus
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  Vince Coccia, distinguished legal counsel for 
  His Infernal Majesty, is: drvince@ix.netcom.com
- --------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 20:39:26 +0200
From: Carlos Alos-Ferrer <alos@merlin.fae.ua.es>
Subject: History of the Geonee, Part 3.

        We left the Geonee just after their sad defeat by the Vilani. Will
the Geonee technicians survive under the patent system...? (Cliffhanger
ending). Find out in this new installment of the History of the Geonee race,
in which a new human race coming from a strange planet called 'Terra'
appears for the first time. <G>
        Er, I mean, here it is, the third part of a Milieu Zero article on
Geonee History, from Ancient Times to the Third Imperium. Comments are welcome.

        Carlos

===============================================================================

The Vilani Occupation

	After the war, Sharurshid  started a long-term plan to bring the Geonee
worlds into the Vilani society. The "original" eight worlds were almost
isolated, and all contact with former Geonee colonies was prohibited. In
each world, traditional Geonee government structures were slowly substituted
by Vilani bureaucracy. Geonee traders were forced to work for Sharurshid,
and technological research was all but stopped by the introduction of the
patent system.
	In -4,700, it was obvious that Sharurshid plan was not working. An armed
rebellion in Forquee generalized to almost all the Geonee worlds in less
than a year. Civil unrest spread to other subject races, and Sharurshid
faced the possibility of a generalized insurrection. The Ziru Sirka Navy was
ordered to crush the Geonee rebellion by all means. Forquee suffered orbital
nuclear bombardment, and almost half of the world population died. The
Vilani marines ruthlessly repressed the insurrection on all the Geonee worlds.
	For the following centuries, the Vilani systematically tried to eliminate
the Geonee as a major influence in Massilia. Their worlds were under
military rule, and most communities were evacuated or forced to meet strict
population control measures to reduce their numbers in a few generations.
Around year -4,100, many of the Geonee colonies in Massilia had been
depopulated and resettled with Vilani colonists. Nevertheless, Geonee
communities (sometimes large) survived in at least thirty worlds in Massilia.
	For the following two millennia, the Geonee were a subject race in the Ziru
Sirka. The military rule was eventually eliminated, but all Geonee worlds
were always ruled by Vilani bureaucrats. Occasional uprisings were promptly
and quietly crushed, and law levels were kept high.

The Vilani-Solomani War

	In -2,235,  the Nth Interstellar War erupted between the Vilani Ziru Sirka
and the recently contacted Solomani humans from Terra. The declining Vilani
empire was overwhelmed by the Solomani.
	The Geonee welcomed the newcomers as liberators. The Geonee worlds rebelled
against the Ziru Sirka and promptly allied themselves with the terrans.
	Quickly organized Geonee naval forces and troops comprised a high
percentage of the "Solomani" forces in Massilia during the war. Geonee
communities became advanced bases and safe bases for the terran forces.
	The Geonee minority of Forquee, repressed for centuries, conducted an
extermination campaign against the Vilani population of the world. Their
vengeance lead them to the commission of war crimes almost as harsh as those
commited against them two thousand years before by the Vilani.
	Interestingly, the Geonee naval forces used thousands of Llyrnians as
starship troopers during the war. This started a now long tradition of
Llyrnian marines and mercenaries serving in Geonee ships.
	When the war ended with the conquest of all the Ziru Sirka by the terran
forces, the Solomani were forced to rule over a vast territory, a situation
which forced them to put even simple lieutenants in charge of whole systems.
Thus, it is not surprising that the Solomani relied heavily on Geonee
advisors in the Massilia sector.

The Rule of Man

	Shortly after the end of the war, the Second Imperium (or Rule of Man) was
established. In -2,200, Emperor Hiroshi I granted autonomy to the Geonee
worlds, which formed the Geonee Autonomous Region jointly with Tlasov
(1328), Nindaro (1428) and Llyrn (0931).
 	It was a time of euphory for the Geonee. The Vilani bureaucracy was
eliminated, and all restrictions on research and technology abolished. The
Rule of Man allowed the Geonee to freely travel through known space, and
some new worlds were settled. Nevertheless, all Geonee worlds or colonies,
new or old, outside the Autonomous Region were under the direct authority of
the Solomani government.
	The Rule of Man found the post-war situation in Forquee specially delicate.
An almost genocidal war had been fought between the Geonee and the Vilani
inhabitants of the world, and the world infrastructures were severely
damaged. Forquee was placed under military rule to avoid a continuous
conflict and direct the energies of both Vilani and Geonee towards
reconstruction. Some decades later, a Solomani settlement was established to
serve as buffer between the two communities.
	In -2,000, several Geonee worlds were at TL 12, on the cutting edge of
technology. Interstellar trade was flourishing, and it seemed that the long
Vilani occupation was all but forgotten. Once again, the Geonee were a
common vision on Massilia and beyond. The Solomani love for personal
independence and initiative matched perfectly well with the Geonee
instincts. They promptly developed a well-deserved fame of being excellent
technicians.

TO BE CONTINUED.....
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Alos-Ferrer                          E-mail: Alos@merlin.fae.ua.es
Dpt. Fundamentos del Analisis Economico     Phn: (34) 6 5903400, Ext. 3226
Universidad de Alicante                     Fax: (34) 6 5903685
03071-Alicante (Spain)                      "Thursuth gha kvaekh?"
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 10:40:56 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, James Garriss wrote:
>
> > The small arms design rules for T4 is the Guns, Guns, and More Guns book.
> >also known as Guns Cubed.
> 
> This isn't an IG product, is it?  Why not?  And who puts it out and where
> can we find more info about them?
> 

Oh Goody! A chance to plug BTRC again!

Guns Guns Guns is a pan-game system weapons design system by Greg Porter,
author of T4 CSC. It is a rather gearhead oriented system, that then
includes scads of conversion tables to the game system of your choice in
the back (which includes TNE, T4 and MegaT).

BTRC's web site is:

http://members.aol.com/btrc/index.html

It is avaliable online from Hyperbooks online,

http://www.hyperbooks.com

	For me the best deal was the all-electronic version, which
includes the main rulebook in a well done adobe .pdf format with embedded
hyperlinks, notes and index, in printable form. You can also get Excel
spreadsheets that automate the entire design process. The all electronic
version is only $12.95, I heartily recommend it.

This is what gaming supplements are SUPPOSED to look like! 

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

------------------------------

Date: Wed,  9 Apr 97 13:22:00 GMT 
From: s.johnson107@genie.com
Subject: Fighters BB Killing Weapons

    I've been following the debate over Fighters with some interest, playing
catch up on some 30+ Digests as I am. :\ But the one thing that keeps getting
pointed out is that Fighters do not appear to have a ship killing on the order
of the Torpedo or Missile as they've evolved durring the course of Warfare
throughout the Twentieth Century here on Earth.  Problem is no one is thinking
in terms of future technologies or the possibilities.
    I could be wrong OC, I still have some ten Digests to go so someone could
have thought of this but I can think of two seperate ways to give a Fighter in
space the ability to seriously threaten a BB.

    1) Take a missle and give it 1,000g of acceleration for 300 seconds.  You
now have a missile moving at your target at .01c and that WILL punch through
just about any armor you care to put on the ship.  At the worst case senario
the target is going to have to expend a LOT of energy trying to vaporize the
incoming missile.
    This is by necessity a stand off weapon, the distance required to build up
final velocity makes it so.  Meaning that the Fighter has an excellent chance
of getting close enough to launch it and then get away to reload and come back
again.  The incoming missile to the target is going to be coming in head on,
thus presenting a minimal target profile.
    And while 1,000g for 300 seconds is brutal, I do believe it would be
possible to design a guidence system for such a missle that would withstand the
initial accelleration.  This means the missle can lock onto it's target and
compensate for the rather violent manuever the target is going to go through
trying to avoid being hit.

    2) One word _antimatter_ as in placed in the warhead.  Nuclear Dampers will
not effect antimatter, completely different forces involved.  The destructive
potential is I believe 100x more powerful then thermonuclear weapons.  A direct
hit would kill your average superdreadnaught I believe.  Antimatter is
something we're producing right now, abet in the form of subatomic particles.
Still given the advances of succeeding Tech Levels it's probably that by Tech
12 the technology will exist to manufacture, manipulate, store and deploy
antimatter weapons.

    Suddenly we now have two means by which Fighters could kill BBs.  Doubtless
these would be less successful then using another BB.  But as a potential
threat, no sane Admiral will ignore them.  Thus Fighters would have a variety
of roles in space warfare.  Not as the ruler of the vaccum or some other
nonsense, but as a capably multi-purpose weapons platform.

Stephen

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 97 19:40 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: TL advancement

In-Reply-To: <970404130908_-1000817824@emout06.mail.aol.com>

<< The expanded Legal and TL digits as presented in the RICE papers (toast in
honor of Jeff Zeitlin and the other RICE authors) IMO are an excellent idea.
Although it provides too much data for the general UPP, it is an excellent
option for refs who wish to delve further into world creation. >>

Haven't seen this. What was wrong with the DGP system?

    ---------=========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: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 14:37:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ethan Henry <ehenry@mag1.magmacom.com>
Subject: Re: Boarding Actions

> From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
> Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
> 
> > Border ship MUST be equipped with some sort of grappel harpoon.
> >
> > Border ship MUST have greater relative mass in order to render victim's
> > maneuver (attitude jets, whatever) useless.
> 
> Slight problem. What are you using for cable on that "harpoon"? You'd
> need unobtanium to keep it from snapping. You'll have hundreds of tons
> of stress on it. And that will snap any reasonable sized cable like a
> thread. All it take is one burst from the main drive and the cable is
> trying to (in effect) support the mass of the ship against the drive's
> g rating. And if there was any slack, it's as if the ship *dropped*
> that far under that many g. So when the slack runs out, the cable may
> snap. The anchor point may tear loose or the grapple will tear loose.
> Probably the last.

Yeah, that is the problem... the main problem is (of course) thus:

Ship A (Attacker) takes out the Thrusters on Ship B (Being Borded).
But if Ship B still has altitude jets, it can start spinning on
multiple axes which make it impossible to board. Hm...

One thing you might do is send over a couple of guys in EVA suits who
would:

first, get close the the ship and try to find a spot where they could
get onto the hull withough getting destroyed. Probably a man-portable
grapple would be good, because as soon as it hits it'll jerk the guy into
motion and he can reel it in to get onto the hull (assuming the guy is
~200 kg with suit, grapple, et al, you should be able to get cable tough
enough to handle a couple Gs of pull, for a short time period).
OK, so now one or two boarders are on the hull. Here's the tough part -
they have to plug up Ship B's altitude jets and plant a big altitude jet
of their own on the hull to counter Ship B's spin and get it so that
ship A can come alongside and fire off the real boarding party.

Now, that's not going to be easy. But it would probably make for good
gaming...

Ethan
- -- 
ehenry@magma.ca                                  http://www.magma.ca/~ehenry

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 21:03:03 +0200
From: Fabrizio De Laurentis <bissio@ares.omninet.it>
Subject: Re: Goldrushgames

At 15.28 09/04/97 MET, you wrote:
>Has anybody got their URL? I was trying to find it but seem to have 
>lost it.
>Does anybody know when their T4 books are due?
>
>Ad Astra,
>
This Is the last URL 
http://members.aol.com/goldrushg/index.htm
[----------------------------o0o----------------------------------]
[Fabrizio De Laurentis             E-mail: bissio@ares.omninet.it ]
[                                                                 ]
[                                                                 ]
[ Two most common elements in the universe: Hydrogen & Stupidity  ]
[----------------------------o0o----------------------------------]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 15:19:33 -0400
From: russcm@zoomnet.net (Christopher M. Russell)
Subject: A theoretical encounter with fighter support.(Fairly Long)

I haven't had the time to read all the posts concerning fighters, nor is
there ever likely going to be enough hours in a day for me to do so. Most of
the one's I have read have had good points. I have not yet had the
opportunity to purchase T4, so I do not know how this system changes the
Traveller universe concerning fighters. When I do start my own designing for
T4, I will likely use the more detailed design system when it comes out.

As an example of how I would use fighters, I've theorized how an encounter
with two well equipped oponents would develope. This assumes Traveller level
technology (approx 13) with one fleet, called Blue, arriving to invade a
system owned by Orange, with the primary objective to secure one of the Gas
Giants in the system as a base of operation for futire use in securing the
whole of the system. Note most of the references to actual weapons will be
using MegaTraveller rules sets.

Blues fleet, knowing that jumping in next to Oranges Gas Giants would be
scuicide, arrives with tankers in interplanetary space, at lease 2 days
flight from their target. They bring in a fleet of 5 Dreadnaughts with about
30 Light Cruisers for screen and an additional 5 heavy cruisers as a forward
scout. Troop carrying ships would be carefully screened inside the
dreadnaught formation.

In addition, 2 carriers are brought along with the following type of fighters: 

- - Two wings (about 200) of interceptors with a tripple beam laser
configuration, giving them the ability to group into flights of 10 to render
a combined effective battery UCP (at TL13) of 9, a respectable amount of
firepower. The interceptors will be built for speed, perhaps with some
sacrifice given to their fuel load. These will initially provide screen for
the refueling of the fleet from any SDB's and deep space fighters, assisting
the light cruisers, and shooting down any incoming warheads.

- - One wing (about 150) of deticated attack fighter/bombers. These will have
some light laser armament, possibly fixed mount beam lasers that can be
combined for a light beam battery, but their main armament will be a missile
turret. Grouping them into flights of 10 with a tripple rack each will give
(at TL13) a battery rating of 7, meaning that if the entire wing of 150
attacks one target, it will be subject to 15 missile attacks at UCP 7, not
excessive, but respectable. These fighters would also have a bay where
ground attack ordinance could be carried.

- - One wing (about 50) of long range fighters. These would be used for
reconosance, serching out concentrations of ships and facilities, updating
data on the system as much as possible. They would have the best possible
sensors as well as accomidations for multi - day missions. The fuel
requirements and accomodations would make these ships large, and, as
unreported information is no information, the need for survivability would
make a need for speed and firepower equally important. As such, these
fighters have a tripple, fixed forward firing beem laser and a missile
turret, lending them equally handy in the approaching battle. Many would
call these ships small gunboats, but their size and use render them more on
the scale of (very expensive) fighters.

- - Three wings (about 300) of space superiority fighters. These nimble little
machines would be the ships escorting the attack bombers to their targets.
Unlike the interceptors, their main need is agility and endurance, with
firepower important, but number 2 on the list. Since agility is fundamental,
a powerful power plant is needed. Noting then power is in abundance with the
engines, the weapon configuration becomes a pair of fusion guns with a pulse
laser for longer range fire. In close, these fusion guns would be lethal. It
is not likely these fighters would need to be grouped into batteries in one
- - on - one dogfights, but in close to a large target, the fusion guns would
be very effective (groups of 10 with 2 guns each equals a UCP of 8).

Orange, in it's system, has 8 battleriders with dozens of SDB's, carriers,
and fighters with similar capabilities to Blue's fighters. Orange detects
Blue's fleet shortly after arrival, but has not localized it. Sending out
it's first wave of SDB's and fighters, the enemy is localized approaching
one of the outlying Gas Giants. Blue detects the approacing SDB's with the
recon squadron, and vectors a heavy cruiser, some light cruisers, and the
attack wing, under escort, to engage.

Assuming that this first wave of SDB's and fighters are neutralized, the
approach to the Gas Giant would continue. Orange would have at most 2
battleriders around the Giant, suplimented by no more than 30 SDB's.
However, by this time more battleriders, SDB's, and carriers would be on
their way, with some perhaps moving to other points in the system watching
for more Blue forces to arrive. Also, couriers would have been sent to call
in reinforcements from other systems, but these would be arrriving at the
earliest in 2 weeks.

The first target for this invader is the world around the Gas Giant holding
the SDB base. This world is also equiped with a few deep meson guns, so
bringing large ships into orbit is scuicide. Fast troop shuttles, under
escort from the superiority fighters and supported by some of the attack
fighters, must attempt to land near the base, securing it and the guns as
quickly as possible. Careful planning chose this one since this world is the
only one around this Gas Giant with such a base, so only this world needs a
major assult. Orange has many fighters and SDB's defending this world, so
before the attack begins, some softening up will be done with the attack
wing, picking off the SDB's and fighters a few at a time, trying to get them
to persue back toward the fleet into the range of the fleet's guns.

Eventually, and probably before the assult on the planet begins, Blue and
Orange fleets will engage. Several reconosance fighters would have  been
shadowing both the battleriders already around the giant, staying in far
orbit avoiding Oranges SDB's and fighters as much as possible, and the
approaching battlerider squadron. Heavy cruisers would occasionally pick at
the approaching fleet, weekening it's SDB screen. If possible, the fleet
around the Gas Giant would be engaged long before the reinforcements could
arrive, making a fight of 5 dreadnaughts and 30 light cruisers against the 2
battleriders and the remainder of the SDB's. However, with the deep meson
guns on the planet, Orange's fleet at the Gas Giant would likely remain
within that protective cover, holding out until the second fleet arrives. 

Blue, prudently, decides to attack the reinforcements first.

Oranges reinforcements are 6 battleriders and 50 SDB's. Orange's SDB's can
match about 15 to 1 against Blue's light cruisers. Blue's gamble is that it
can likely engage the reinforcements far enough away from the Gas Giant to
prevent a flanking maneuver from the fleet there if such a maneuver is
attempted. If a flanking maneuver is attempted, a heavy cruiser will
standing by to help escort a strike group to take the planet. If there is no
flanking maneuver, then hopefully enough of Blue's fleet will survive to
engage the fleet at the Gas Giant. Recall Blue jumped in with tankers, which
did leave soon after, so it does have enough fuel to jump out if all goes
wrong, even though this would abandon most of the fighters, but if that is
needed, most of the fighters would likely be long destroyed.

In the long run, of course, this battle will be won by the side that made
best use of available assets. Blue's interceptors would need to guard
against Orange's attack fighters while surviving Orange's superiority
fighters. Same holds true for Orange's interceptors. Blue's attack wing must
clear out as many of Orange's SDB's as possible, staying alive to help with
the battleriders if needed, and staying in enough strength to attack the
planet if needed. Since the biggest advantage of the fighter is it's
mobility and flexibility, the fighters must be applied where they would do
most good, and this will vary from moment to moment in the battle.

This encounter is fairly general, and there are many additions that could be
factored into both sides of the equation. Each of the ships in the fleet
(with the possible exception if the SDB's) could have small fighter
squadrons onboard which would be a further enhancement of capabilities.

I have a few fighter designs of my own and have a couple of as yet untried
"house rules" that could enhance thr fighters place on the battlefield. I
won't get into them in this post (as it is long enough as is) but I can post
them in a later message if requested.

Christopher M. Russell
russcm@zoomnet.net

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 14:32:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: Honest Review of the T4 Referee's Screen

On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, SD Mooney wrote:

> At last! Does EA have this innovation too? Let's hope IG do more of this,
> because they may get soe casual sales....

I believe Pocket Empires will be the first book to have advertising copy 
on the back cover. Marc has introduced several changes in the IG line, 
and they're coming into play now.  You saw some of the new layout 
philosophy in Emperor's Aresenal (couldn't do a lot with it, given the 
nature of the product), and you'll see more in Pocket Empires, Anomalies, 
Psionic Institutes, and future projects.  He also has introduced some 
changes to the cover design, which is seen first on the Game Screen, and 
will be continued on all future projects.  EA wasn't included for 
scheduling reasons, but PE is supposed to have back cover ad copy.


- -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: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 14:29:04 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Missiles

At 07:08 PM 4/9/97 +0200, you wrote:
>
>Does anyone have some different missile-designs 
>for T4.
>
>Tommy Grav
>
>

Just how different do you mean or are you just shoppin for "Canonite"
things?<G>


- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 09 Apr 97 15:25:54 EDT
From: Jeff & Michelle Norton <103010.212@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: EA et al...

	Got the EA book at the Armory on friday and was very impressed. Fine work
from Greg Porter. Hope he's doing the vehicles book...
	The only problems that I noted were the (small) note of gauss rifles at
the end of tech 12, no gernade launchers per se, no mass driver arty, and the
lack of explosives after 12 (tho the tech 14 plasma gernade looks cool...); it
is streamlined and looks good. 
	If this is the NEW IG standard, I'll be waiting with $$ in hand for the
next ones coming down the pipe.
	Oh, just a quick question to Joe: when is IG doing a Striker/mini's
supplement/game? Will this be after the 3rd Imperuim milieu book(s)?

	Oh, I got back from Alabama last week from Army school and went through
the 500+ messages from you all. Thank god I'm on leave for two weeks... You all
have been very busy. You all want to know about the National Rocket & Space
musuem in Huntsville? Let me know...

	Rearguards,
	Jeff Norton

	Life IS a minefield... (especially when you forget the layout diagram...)

	PS  I read a good book from Rick Shelley, "Until Relieved". Good Military
SF.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 15:54:22 -0400
From: russcm@zoomnet.net (Christopher M. Russell)
Subject: Re: Fighters BB Killing Weapons

>    1) Take a missle and give it 1,000g of acceleration for 300 seconds.  You
>now have a missile moving at your target at .01c and that WILL punch through
>just about any armor you care to put on the ship.  At the worst case senario
>the target is going to have to expend a LOT of energy trying to vaporize the
>incoming missile.

This may work, and would be quite large, but I doubt that it would need to
be moving that fast.

I like it though :)

>    2) One word _antimatter_ as in placed in the warhead.  Nuclear Dampers will
>not effect antimatter, completely different forces involved.  The destructive
>potential is I believe 100x more powerful then thermonuclear weapons.  A direct
>hit would kill your average superdreadnaught I believe.  Antimatter is
>something we're producing right now, abet in the form of subatomic particles.
>Still given the advances of succeeding Tech Levels it's probably that by Tech
>12 the technology will exist to manufacture, manipulate, store and deploy
>antimatter weapons.

Actually, if tech level is the same as it has been in the last three
Traveller incarnations, Antimatter is at least a tech 16 development. Even
today, we can barely produce enough to learn about some of it's properties,
but we cannot produce enough to be of significantce (perhaps one or two
particals at most). If one takes the past trends in partical physics as any
clue, we aren't going to see practical antimatter uses for thousands of
years, baring any more dark ages.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 14:35:47 -0600
From: Jon Goff <jongoff@et.byu.edu>
Subject: Fighters-just my .02Cr

First, this is coming from a TNE perspective.

Some ideas for fighters.  First, use passive sensors, with a Ladar on 
the side.  Using the sensor handoff rules, the tender, or flag ship,
(or maybe a modified fighter) locks on to the enemy ship.  It then hands
the sensor lock off to the squadron (5-10) of fighters.  They then
either keep the lock with a Ladar, or with a PEMS system.

Second, missles are actually fairly nice (They actually can do quite a
bit of damage to a Capital ship--I once took out a Sylea BB with 4 400dt
SDBs!), but you mount them with external grapples, and you either have
a MFD gunner in the fighter (ie a two man fighter ala the Tomcat IIRC), 
or have some MFDs on the Flag Ship with 1000AU Laser communicators.

Third, maybe mounting some missles with area Jammers would help.  As the
missles aren't attached to the fighters, the enemy ships can't use the
jamming to lock on with passive sensors.  Give the missles EMM, and you
have a light RCV with the capability of lasting for quite some time (as
it will be tough to hit).

Mount a few (2-3) light laser lances capable of full auto.  Use these
to ruin enemy sensors.

All fighters should have Lascoms to communicate.  If the TL allows use
Meson communicators.

OK--that is all for now. 

Jon

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 16:51:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Ground Support

On Tue, 08 Apr 1997, Andrew Vallance wrote:

So what ships will be used in
interface work? As I see it: firstly there's my beloved fighters, great
for direct support; then there will be the bomb ketches, smallish (destroyer
sized or so), not quick (2 maybe 3g), armour that would not go amiss on a
dreadnaught, heavy on other active and passive defence, best sensors you can
fit, armed mostly with missiles; and finally your strike cruisers, basically
scaled up bomb ketches, bit quicker, bit less well defended (they have to be
able to engage in space combat too) for deployment after the fighters and
bomb ketches have neutralised the planetary defences. The battleships are
not deployed until the closing stages, by which time its all over bar the
shouting.

___

How about mini-carriers that plunge into the atmosphere and release pure
atmospheric fighters?

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 13:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net> wrote:

At 09:34 AM 4/9/97 +0100, Anders Backman wrote:

>>> Comparisons to cyberpunk genre games start creeping in here,
>>>leading to the 64,000 Cr question...why ISN'T Traveller cyberpunkish?

>>Because it is based on SF literature that predates cyberpunk by a decade 
>>or two depending on wether you've read "Dra Adder" or not. I like the 
>>absence of cyberpunk in Traveller as cyberpunk seems to have so little 
>>workable ideas and so much cliche'. TNE however had the feel of 
>>cyberpunk so there you could insert cybernetic chainsaw arms and 
>>general nihilistic feel.

>I agree with Anders as to why it's not there, but I wonder if the
>hermetically sealed nature of the Traveller system is going to be a help or
>a hindrance in the overall market.  I'm not saying it should be a cyberpunk
>game (we've got too many of those as it is, and I can take only so much
>nihilism), but in its image of computers, government, bioengineering,
>nano-engineering, and even its vision of military units, doctrine, and
>weapons, Traveller has maintained a decided 1970s big-iron, big-
>government, big-product, big-war feel.

Exactly!!!

I don't want cyberpunk Traveller, I want a Traveller which takes into
account realistic advances in science and technology.  Traveller as "the
game of 1960s/ 70s SF" is an amazingly dull idea to me.  I want Traveller
to be a game of *modern* science fiction.  Not cyberpunk, but SF which
takes all the advances in computer technology and genetic engineering into
account. 

Hell, in last weeks paper I saw an article about how Monsanto had breed a
plant (old rape seed) which contained plastic in its leaves and seeds. 
They expect to begin making bottles and bags out of this plastic within a
decade.  [fortunately this plastic is also quite biodegradable]. 

The farm worlds and factory worlds set up of Traveller simply doesn't make
sense in light of 90s technology.  With CSC and EA the actual technology
in the game is getting better (though its still too conservative) but the
social changes produced by these technologies are largely ignored. 

Comments?


- -John Snead jsnead@netcom.com

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1165
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest      Wednesday, April 9 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1166



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Emperor's Arsenal
IR Sensors in Space
Re: Fighters - Revisted II
Rabbit shooting
Re: Fighters BB Killing Weapons
Re: EA et al...
Re: Yet more Pigeons
Re: Ship Speed
Re: Fighters BB Killing Weapons
Re: Fighters-just my .02Cr
Online High Guard(s)?
Is there a Mathematician in the House?
Missiles+Fighters
Missiles+fighters II
Missiles+Fighters [Re: Subject: Fighters - Revisited III]
Re: Preliminary THUUD Design - Comments, Please
Re: EA et al...
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Re: Ship Speed
Fighters: Stack them Compensators!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 14:37:25 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

> Guns Guns Guns is a pan-game system weapons design system by Greg Porter,
> author of T4 CSC. It is a rather gearhead oriented system, that then
> includes scads of conversion tables to the game system of your choice in
> the back (which includes TNE, T4 and MegaT).

Bruce,

So, if I'm reading you right, this game system is directly related to 
T4?

I can use it to design T4 weapons by using the actual T4 conversion 
tables?  You mean I don't have to play a GM's hunch when converting 
to T4.

If this is so, I had no idea.  I thought it was for another game 
system.  I'll definitely get it if it is directly related to T4.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 14:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: IR Sensors in Space

> Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 09:04:54 -0600
> From: Jon Goff <jongoff@et.byu.edu>
> 
> > Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 10:36:51 PST
> > From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
> 
> > But that's the point. You *can't* mask it. Not in space. The 
> > background is dead "black".
> 
> Not neccesarily so.  You should read about "Solar Wind", "Background
> Radiation Levels," "Vacuum Polarization," and "Solar Flares."

Big deal.  Just as is true for atmospheric fighters, coming in out of the
sun fools both the Mk I eyeball and a lot of IR sensors.  For really
primitive sensors, that is.  For *really* bad sensors, you can draw its
attention away by getting *near* the sun along its LOS.  In fact, this was
a standard defense back in the early to mid sixties against IR homing
missiles...get between them and the Sun, then sharply veer off to turn
your own exhaust away.  The poor dumb missile would proceed to try to
bring down the Sun.

In your typical space battle, with a semi-habitable world nearby, your
heat sources are: 

* The star, a very strong blackbody thermal source at about 10,000 K,
  angular diameter <1 degree.

* The stellar extended atmosphere/wind, a very weak thermal source at
  several million K, covering nearly half the sky.

* Zodiacal dust, an incredibly weak thermal source at 100-400K or so,
  all over the sky but strongly concentrated along the ecliptic plane.

* The world, a strongish blackbody thermal source at about 300 K,
  angular diameter <120 degrees, much less in most cases.

* Perhaps some moons, also at about 300K, angular diameters typically
  <1 degree unless the battle focusses around one of them.

All other sources (including cosmic 3 K background and so forth) are
negligible for our purposes.

Now, what are the heat sources on board a starship?

* Living/work space, at 300 K.

* Fusion chamber, at perhaps 100,000 K

Living and work spaces fill most Traveller ships, meaning that at minimum
a vessel will have a blackbody signature of 300 K.  Depending on how much
waste heat the fusion process produces, the net effective temp will be
higher, or perhaps you'll have a two-humped IR signature...a 300 K signal
superimposed on a (say) 5,000 K fusion cooling grid signature.

Note carefully that the only strong IR source in that latter range in the
entire system is the star itself, with a tiny angular diameter.  You can
sneak up on one (stupid) vessel by boring in straight out of the sun, but
the trick doesn't work on two or more ships more than a few thousand km
apart.

Now, a ship with its power plant off could hide reasonably well against
the background of a habitable world, in low orbit...but presumably
everyone knows that trick and will go active there if an initial passive
sweep doesn't turn anything up.

> > The ship is glowing "white". And any "mask" *near* the ship will 
> > absorb the heat it is supposed to be blocking, which then makes *it* 
> > start glowing.
> 
> Actually, the masks blur the heat dissipation, thus causing the IR 
> signal to be harder to get a "lock" on.  Plus, if they haven't allready
> figured that you are out there, you can easily blend in.  With the 
> propagation of EM radiation over thousands of kilometers, it would be
> easy to hide a ship.  

The only way to "smear" an IR signal as you suggest is to dump hot
*material* (gas, dust, whatever) overboard, and in large quantities.
Traveller ships don't carry enough spare mass to do this trick.

Now, you *can* drop decoy flares or drones, just as modern aircraft do.

As for propagation drop...I really think you're seriously underestimating
just how intrinsically IR 'bright' a starship is, *by its very nature*
(having fusion and livable quarters on board).  Also, remember we're
talking about band-sensitive sensors -- hiding a fusion drive against a
habitable planet or the corona won't work, because the spectrum will stand
out like a sore thumb.

> > Only if you repeal a bunch of the laws of physics.
> 
> Or if you use a bunch of the laws of physics that the poster obviously
> hasn't looked into.

Having made my living off sensors for a number of years (not any more,
though), I hope you'll trust that I'm giving you the straight dope here.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 17:04:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fighters - Revisted II

In a message dated 4/9/97 6:35:39 PM, Solomani wrote:

<<So practically, the 10 minutes/6g combo is the "faster" ship, correct?
>>

No, it is the "quicker" ship.

Quicker refers to acceleration, faster to top speed. But that's symantics,
and open to debate (some cultures might reverse the two terms I guess, but
that's how it is here in Michigan).

------------------------------

Date: 09 Apr 97 17:00:31 EDT
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Rabbit shooting

>> If a bunch of 12-17 year old 'scouts can listen to the instruction "If any
living thing enters the range, cease fire immediately", Why can't a bunch  of
pros? <<

Perhaps because the scouts are being trained to help little old ladies across
roads and so on and the soldiers are being trained to, erm, kill people?

[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------] | Hugh Foster
100326,446       | |   http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Hugh_Foster
| | The English may not like music, but they absolutely love     | | the noise
it makes. (Sir Thomas Beecham)                     |
[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 22:15:29 +0200
From: Per Bernhardsson <bard@ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: Fighters BB Killing Weapons

s.johnson107@genie.com wrote:

>     2) One word _antimatter_ as in placed in the warhead.  Nuclear Dampers will
> not effect antimatter, completely different forces involved.  The destructive
> potential is I believe 100x more powerful then thermonuclear weapons.  A direct
> hit would kill your average superdreadnaught I believe.  Antimatter is
> something we're producing right now, abet in the form of subatomic particles.
> Still given the advances of succeeding Tech Levels it's probably that by Tech
> 12 the technology will exist to manufacture, manipulate, store and deploy
> antimatter weapons.

Interesting idea, but remember that antimatter powerplats don't appear
until TL 17 (according to FFS), now you are saying that weapons and
powerplants are two completely different things. That is true, but they
are not so different thing as to allow weapons using antimatter 5 TLs
before. It is very hard to keep antimatter stable, and think about the
stress 1000g acceleration would put on the containment chamber... One
minor error and the missile would blow at launch. Not a very nice thing
to do, but missiles don't discriminate too much... :)

 / Per

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 16:26:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: EA et al...

On 9 Apr 1997, Jeff & Michelle Norton wrote:

> 	Oh, just a quick question to Joe: when is IG doing a Striker/mini's
> supplement/game? Will this be after the 3rd Imperuim milieu book(s)?

Hmmm.  Not this year, as far as I know.  But, when I look at things as 
they're shaping up, I see that by the end of this year, we'll have 
almost everything else, rules-wise, in place (including revisions).  

Books of starships, vehicles, equipment, weapons.  A more robust, better 
stated QSDS, and the full-up FF&S ship design systems.  Vehicle design.  
A FFW-type large-scale wargame (Imperial Squadrons).  Lots of background 
on M0.  A few adventures.  A how-to on starship layout and operation.

I'd say next year should see the rest of the missing pieces...assuming 
they plan on putting out a miniatures game.  Lord knows I'd like to 
see the Role-Playing Space Combat system (also a miniatures game) 
published.  And a revised edition of the original Striker wouldn't make 
me upset, either. :)

Soon as I hear anything, I'll let you know.


- -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: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 17:29:21 -0400
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: Yet more Pigeons

	Andrew Vallance wrote:

>
>>  The WWII pigeon bomb was actually an American idea, developed by the
>>well-known Dr. B. F. Skinner, of operant conditioning fame.  He trained
>>pigeons to peck at the center of a picture (aerial photo of a factory, let
>>us say).  In the bomb, the pigeon would peck at a little viewsceen that
>>showed a picture of the ground below transmited through lenses.  Since the
>>pigeon pecked at the center of the factory, if the image shifted off
>>center the pecking shifted off center and the guidance mechanism of the
>>bomb would correct course so the picture was in the center of the screen
>>again.
>
>This does sound like the device I saw mentioned. Apparently it was evaluated
>by the RAF but rejected as inhumane. I didn't know who developed it.

	Let's see... Pigeon guidance was being implemented in order to
guide what?  Blind people?  Little old ladies?  High explosive warheads
whose sole reason for existence was killing large numbers of people in an
unpleasant fashion and causing massive property damage?

	And they drew the lines at blowing up pigeons?!

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 13:16:14 -0400
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: Ship Speed

> > No, it's not.  I have an uncle with a speedboat, he couldn't
> > possibly keep up with CVN-65 (the Enterprise).  Not even at the
> > speed the Navy will admit to.  
> 
> Seriously?  If thats so then i AM wrong. The ENterprise is that fast?????
> or is your unles speed boat crappy :)
>>> 
I think the Navy admits to something like 40 knots (any squids out
there?).  Stories about "rushing to a liberty port" abound in
sci.military.naval at some absurdly high speed.
<<<

35 knots is about right for the older Big E. And that is with 4 of her
eight reactors off line.

We were doing about 33 knots when the Carl V. passed us in the IO. She
had a rooster tail going back about 100 feet and made us look like we
were sitting still. I would say about 45 knots is the VERY top speed for
those newer carriers. But that would place a lot of stress on the entire
power system.

Bob

Of course most navy ships can not keep up with

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 22:18:35 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Fighters BB Killing Weapons

On Wed,  9 Apr 97 13:22:00 GMT , you wrote:

>     1) Take a missle and give it 1,000g of acceleration for 300 =
seconds.  You
> now have a missile moving at your target at .01c and that WILL punch =
through
> just about any armor you care to put on the ship.  At the worst case =
senario
> the target is going to have to expend a LOT of energy trying to =
vaporize the
> incoming missile.

Why a LOT of energy?  Even a marginal hit (at a non-evading target
heading straight ahead) will take out its guidance systems, allowing
the target to simply "side-step" the blind missile.  I do not believe
that point defense use of lasers vs. missiles ever mentioned
"vapourizing" them, although I could be wrong.

>     2) One word _antimatter_ as in placed in the warhead.  Nuclear =
Dampers will
> not effect antimatter, completely different forces involved.  The =
destructive
> potential is I believe 100x more powerful then thermonuclear weapons.  =
A direct
> hit would kill your average superdreadnaught I believe.  Antimatter is
> something we're producing right now, abet in the form of subatomic =
particles.
> Still given the advances of succeeding Tech Levels it's probably that =
by Tech
> 12 the technology will exist to manufacture, manipulate, store and =
deploy
> antimatter weapons.

Wrong.  Antimatter in the Traveller universe isn't available as a
power source (and this would _include_ harnessing it for use as a
weapon) until TL 17+.

If you chose to defy Traveller "canon", you could just as easily
create a weapon based on high-energy particle accelerators firing
particles of antimatter.  These weapons wouldn't have to be very
powerful, since they would rely on the interaction between matter and
antimatter to do most of the damage (they might even be used in
point-defense).  Now the rules of combat must change again...

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 18:03:33 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Fighters-just my .02Cr

At 02:35 PM 4/9/97 -0600, Jon Goff <jongoff@et.byu.edu> wrote:
>First, this is coming from a TNE perspective.
>
>Some ideas for fighters.  First, use passive sensors, with a Ladar on 
>the side.  Using the sensor handoff rules, the tender, or flag ship,
>(or maybe a modified fighter) locks on to the enemy ship.  It then hands
>the sensor lock off to the squadron (5-10) of fighters.  They then
>either keep the lock with a Ladar, or with a PEMS system.
>

Some good thoughts, if one ship has a lock then thru a Tactical Data Link
using some form of tighbeam comms, them all ships sharing the link can
compute the Firecontrol solution for thier weapons to tehe target.


- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:43:12 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Online High Guard(s)?

Is there any ship building/ship combat rules on the net?  Ive lost High
Guard and the T4 Starships book never seems to make correct ship.


c'ya hate to be ya,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


The word Crying does not appear in the Lexicon of heaven. It is
the only word in the Lexicon of hell.
The Singer

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 16:56:18 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Is there a Mathematician in the House?

I'm having trouble with a probability problem, and I wanted to see if 
anybody on the list can help me.

I'm working on the idea, like in Marc's new task system, of 
considering any throw where 3 sixes pop up as a spectacular failure.

This would be used with KBv2.0, but I need to test the percentages.  
I have a mathematician that plays in my game, but he is out of town 
on business.  I'm stumbling over the problem.

What I need to know:

What is the probability that 3 sixes will pop up when you throw 4D?

How about for 5D?

For 6D?

And for 7D?

If anybody can give me these probs or show me the correct way to 
arrive at them, I'd be very appreciative.

Thanks,

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:45:47 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Missiles+Fighters

On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, Anders Backman wrote:

> >Another possibility would be neutrino guided missiles that go for the
> >power plant (?)  These are the only two thing i could think of that would
> >be worth sticking on a fighter and possibly making them ;ship killers'
> 
> Neutrino detectors need to be large otherwise there wouldn't be any other
> sensors as they are so advantageous: You can look through planets and keep
> your sensors under armor. Also the detection capability increases with
> volume rather than area.

I dont think it would be beyond the realm of traveller to build a small
enougth neutrino guidnace system so it would fit on a missile.  It may be
short range, but thats why its delivered by a fighter.

c'ya hate to be ya,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


The word Crying does not appear in the Lexicon of heaven. It is
the only word in the Lexicon of hell.
The Singer

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:57:51 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Missiles+fighters II

ANother thing that occured to me, the two major draw backs for fighters
seems to be a) no ship-killing weapon and b) no effective defense, since
performance doesnt seem to help much.

I dont have anything for point b) but point a) i have already mentioned in
another post some intresting, albeit short ranged, missile weapons that
pack a punch.  Another modification would be that a missile would have no
fuel or engine.  The fighter zooms in and "drops" the missile, the missile
would continue to travel at the speed and vector of its initial drop and
hit the capital ship.  Taking away fuel/engine from the missile would
leave more room for explosives.


c'ya hate to be ya,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


The word Crying does not appear in the Lexicon of heaven. It is
the only word in the Lexicon of hell.
The Singer

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 11:13:31 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Missiles+Fighters [Re: Subject: Fighters - Revisited III]

On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Bob Sanders wrote:

> Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au> wrote:
> 
> >>Understood.  Though im begining to believe there effectiveness in a
> traveller universe is limited.<<
> 
> Do not give up hope, see below. 
> 

I havnt!, Not yet anyway.   I read your tactics, looks good, read my
weapon suggestions under Fighters+Missiles.  We may crack this nut yet :)



c'ya hate to be ya,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


The word Crying does not appear in the Lexicon of heaven. It is
the only word in the Lexicon of hell.
The Singer

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 20:05:56 -0400
From: "Chris Cox" <chriscox@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Preliminary THUUD Design - Comments, Please

Dr. Mark Clark wrote:

>   The other problem is that there is no provision for L-Hyd tanks in QSDS.
> The design I'd like to make would have a 400T hull with a 100T tank.  In
> normal operation the tank stays on for J2 operation.  Dropping the tank
> gives one J3 jump, with subsequent performance at J1 until the tank gets
> re-attached.  This is similar to the old Close Escort from Classic
> Traveller, and allows a more flexible operating envelope.

I think the reason for the lack of L-Hyd tanks may be because they won't be
invented in the Imperium for a Millennium or so.

As for the design, overall very good and solid.  Only thing that I think that
would improve it would be a write-up with a bit more color to it. 

Thanks for posting you design

Chris Cox
(chriscox@ix.netcom.com)
The Draconis Cluster Traveller pages
(http://users.aol.com/yanbeck/trav.htm)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 17:10:45 -0700
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: EA et al...

At 04:26 PM 4/9/97 -0500, Joseph E. Walsh wrote:
>I'd say next year should see the rest of the missing pieces...assuming 
>they plan on putting out a miniatures game.  Lord knows I'd like to 
>see the Role-Playing Space Combat system (also a miniatures game) 
>published.  And a revised edition of the original Striker wouldn't make 
>me upset, either. :)

My understanding is that Striker wasn't playtested the first time around,
or that at least the vehicle construction part wasn't.  I hope any new
release of it won't be just a regurgitation of what went before.

And... add my vote to the "No more Chris Foss art" cabal.  I _like_ the
look of it, but it'd be difficult to get art where the style was further
from Traveller without putting cute unicorns or something in it.  I think
players want somethign that they could conceivably say "yeah, we went
_there_ in _that_ ship!"


- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 19:33:09 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

At 02:37 PM 4/9/97 +0000, Kenneth wrote:
>
>> Guns Guns Guns is a pan-game system weapons design system by Greg Porter,
>> author of T4 CSC. It is a rather gearhead oriented system, that then
>> includes scads of conversion tables to the game system of your choice in
>> the back (which includes TNE, T4 and MegaT).
>
>Bruce,
>
>So, if I'm reading you right, this game system is directly related to 
>T4?
>
>I can use it to design T4 weapons by using the actual T4 conversion 
>tables?  You mean I don't have to play a GM's hunch when converting 
>to T4.
>

Yes it is true, 3G3 is what Greg used to design the weapons for CSC and EA.
I have  the hardback version, and the spreadsheet too.

The spreadsheet has conversions for MT/TNE/T4, the hardback has conversions
for TNE/T4. I do not know about the acrobat version.

>If this is so, I had no idea.  I thought it was for another game 
>system.  I'll definitely get it if it is directly related to T4.
>
>Kenneth.
>

Go and get yourself a copy, after that you might want to hit yourself with
a wet carp.<G>
- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:30:13 
From: dadams@tig.com.au
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

** Reply to note from James Garriss <jpg@langley.mitre.org> Wed, 09 Apr 1997 11:35:16 -0400 
>    
> At 08:22 AM 4/8/97 -0400, you wrote: 
> >Douglas <douglas@*teleport.com> writes: 
> >>I almost hate to ask, I know this has probably been discussed and I missed 
> >>the thread, but.... 
> >>Where are the design rules for weapons?  Are the FF&S rules in effect for 
> >>T4? 
> > 
> > The small arms design rules for T4 is the Guns, Guns, and More Guns book. 
> >also known as Guns Cubed. 
>    
> This isn't an IG product, is it?  Why not?  And who puts it out and where 
> can we find more info about them? 
 
Greg Porter has a day gig when not at IG called BTRC, which did such execlent systems like 
CORPS, Timelords,Black Death, 3G3 (Guns Guns Guns), Timelords, Slag and others. If you want 
more, look at Greg's homepage at http://members.aol.com/btrc 
 
If you want to buy 3g3, go to the hyperbooks link on Greg's page, you can get PDF and book 
versions of his games. 
 
 
>    
> TIA, 
>    
>  James Garriss                          System Engineer, MITRE                
>  jpg@langley.mitre.org          http://www.cs.odu.edu/~garriss 
>    
>    
 

Darryl Adams		dadams@tig.com.au 
 

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 19:39:44 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Ship Speed

At 01:16 PM 4/9/97 -0400, Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com> wrote:
>> > No, it's not.  I have an uncle with a speedboat, he couldn't
>> > possibly keep up with CVN-65 (the Enterprise).  Not even at the
>> > speed the Navy will admit to.  
>> 
>> Seriously?  If thats so then i AM wrong. The ENterprise is that fast?????
>> or is your unles speed boat crappy :)
>>>> 
>I think the Navy admits to something like 40 knots (any squids out
>there?).  Stories about "rushing to a liberty port" abound in
>sci.military.naval at some absurdly high speed.
><<<
>
>35 knots is about right for the older Big E. And that is with 4 of her
>eight reactors off line.
>

Well with all eight on line she is a "Most Impressive" sight.

>We were doing about 33 knots when the Carl V. passed us in the IO. She
>had a rooster tail going back about 100 feet and made us look like we
>were sitting still. I would say about 45 knots is the VERY top speed for
>those newer carriers. But that would place a lot of stress on the entire
>power system.
>

- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 17:33:00 -0700
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: Fighters: Stack them Compensators!

Before I begin, let me unequivocally state:

I hate this Fighter thread.

The ground beneath the greasy spot where the horse once was is worn down
to the bedrock.

That said, I just discovered something that seemingly hasn't come up yet
regarding the acceleration advantage of fighters. Sure, Leonard has
pointed out that fighters will have a greater G capability due to the
single pilot etc etc etc.

But having recently gotten my grubby fingers on a copy of CSC, I have
discovered something embedded in the Vehicle Design Rules:

Compensators can be stacked!

Want 9G compensation at TL-12? Simple. Multiply 3G compensator volume by
3. Envelop pilot's area (2 cu. m or so). Pay through the nose. Remember:
The structure must be designed to handle the desired G's.

According to CSC:

    Comp. Vol. = ( Desired G Comp. / Max. G Comp ) ^ 3 * Std. Vol.

Granted, the vehicle design rules were not designed to be compatible
with QSDS or SSDS.

But if Traveller Technology allows it, then it can be done, dang-nab it.

PS. This doesn't mean I think Loonies with Fighters should attack the
nearest dreadnaught. Fighters have specialized roles, and taking on a
big ship isn't one of them.

- - 
====== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /---- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X->  http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275  \
 -----------------------/ \=========== Eschew Obfuscation ===========

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1166
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest      Thursday, April 10 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1167



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Fighters BB Killing Weapons
Re: Low-tech space fighters (4th ATTEMPT -- is this thing broken?)
Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)
Air Force pilot training
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1156
Re: Missiles
Re: Known Bright Star List for the Alpha Leonis/Crucis Sector
Re: Subject: Fighters revisted
Re: Yet more Pigeons
Re: Pigeon Power!
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Re: Missiles+fighters II
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters
computers and fighters stuff
Re: Fighters - Revisted II
Re: Fighters-just my .02Cr
Re: Fighters: Stack them Compensators!
Design and Dune
What to Call M:0 RICE/BARD Papers?
Re: Subject: Fighters revisted
Re: Fighters - Revisted II

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 19:51:51 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Fighters BB Killing Weapons

At 10:18 PM 4/9/97 GMT, jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay) wrote:
>On Wed,  9 Apr 97 13:22:00 GMT , you wrote:
>
>> snip<<
>>     2) One word _antimatter_ as in placed in the warhead.  Nuclear
Dampers will
>> not effect antimatter, completely different forces involved.  The
destructive
>> potential is I believe 100x more powerful then thermonuclear weapons.  A
direct
>> hit would kill your average superdreadnaught I believe.  Antimatter is
>> something we're producing right now, abet in the form of subatomic
particles.
>> Still given the advances of succeeding Tech Levels it's probably that by
Tech
>> 12 the technology will exist to manufacture, manipulate, store and deploy
>> antimatter weapons.
>
>Wrong.  Antimatter in the Traveller universe isn't available as a
>power source (and this would _include_ harnessing it for use as a
>weapon) until TL 17+.
>

Well not quite anymore, EA page 104 has AM firing gauss rifle at TL16? and
a Contragrav rifle that uses AM for fuel giving it 1.8 billion G's, and it
is listed as TL16?

Also Emperor's Arsenal is "canon" for you "canonite"



- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 12:20:20 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Low-tech space fighters (4th ATTEMPT -- is this thing broken?)

On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Grandfather wrote:

Sounds like a winning "Space above and beyond":)

I like the plot.

A point on lifesupport, youd have just an effective fighter command if you
ditched lifesuport (for more alien-scum-killing-weaponry) and each pilot
has a vacc suite.



c'ya hate to be ya,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


The word Crying does not appear in the Lexicon of heaven. It is
the only word in the Lexicon of hell.
The Singer

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 13:01:34 +1200
From: Rupert Boleyn <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Fighters - a response (LONG)

At 11:01 8/04/97 PST, you wrote:

Snip

>The real trick is that even *with* acceleration couches, g-tanks, and
>what have you, there's still an *individual variance in how many gees
>you can handle. You pick fighter pilots from the top 5%? 1%? The folks
>on larger ships *can't* be selected that way except to for a minimum
>standard. You need too mant different sorts of skills and training. 
>
>So the fighter pilot is *inherently* more capable of handling high
>g-loads or he wouldn't *be* a fighter pilot.

Snip

>-- 
>Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
> shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
>leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort
>

IMHO this is a fallacious argument, because the ships are being built by
civilizations spanning whole solar systems, with populations in the
billions. This means that the top 1% can be measured by the million. I'm
sure that with this many people to choose from you could find a G-tolerant
crew for your entire fleet, since aside from Ed. Hamilton's old stories most
Sci-fi environments seems to have very small space fleets for their
population bases.

R. Boleyn

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 21:11:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: GoldRushG@aol.com
Subject: Air Force pilot training

<< How long does it take the US Airforce? >>

  The "basic" pilot training is 51 weeks. After that, they go through
additional training for their specific type of bird (fighters, cargo planes,
etc.).

  Mark

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 21:17:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: GoldRushG@aol.com
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1156

<< The major powers of ww2 turned out pilots over about 2-4 month period. >>

  And look at what they had to work with. Today's pilots deal with much more
advanced concepts, maneuvers, speeds, equipment and armament. This results in
a much longer training time.

  There is absolutely NO way you could adequately train a brand new O-1 to
fly an F-16 or F-15 in 2-4 months. It would never happen. Heck, I doubt if
pilots even get into a plane in the first few months of training, nevermind
flying solo. And that's just in the T-37 and T-38 trainers!

  Mark

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 12:41:20 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Missiles

On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, Tommy Grav wrote:

Sure do, what were you after?


> 
> Does anyone have some different missile-designs 
> for T4.
> 
> Tommy Grav
> 
> 


c'ya hate to be ya,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


The word Crying does not appear in the Lexicon of heaven. It is
the only word in the Lexicon of hell.
The Singer

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 21:40:06 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: Known Bright Star List for the Alpha Leonis/Crucis Sector

Nicolas LEJEUNE wrote:

> Interesting but I've check yesterday where all those stars where in the
> map. What do we do with those data. All the DGP stellar data are wrong. Do
> we change thoses. 

   I'm fixing all the stellar data at this very moment.  The UWPs will
not change, neither will the trade classifications, population modifers,
or number of gas giants or planetoid belts present with one exception,
Beta Pictoris, which I had to make an adjustment to the gas giant and
planetoid belt stats to make them fit with what we know of the system
now.

   All previous stellar data should be disregarded.  DGP generated this
sector with what appears to be a flawed piece of software (more on that
in a moment).  At the very least it did not incorporate any of changes
that took place in the stellar generation tables since Book 6, and it
*desperately* needs fixed as a result.

   Some other observations:

1) There seems to be an inordinate number of large stars in this
sector.  I'm not sure if it was a software problem or just a bizarre
coincidence.  I'm leaning toward a problem with the software at this
point, because...

2) ...check out the adjusted percentages of the various types of primary
stars.  I say "adjusted" because this includes the original data with
fixes for the known bright stars incorporated.
       percent  #
   O - 0.00    (0)
   B - 0.61    (3)
   A - 4.31    (21)
   F - 2.25    (11)
   G - 12.73   (62)
   K - 25.05   (122)
   M - 55.03   (268)

   Note that type 'A' stars outnumber type 'F'.  This simply should not
be the case.  Type 'A' stars make up about 1 percent of all stars in the
Universe.  There were also an inordinate number of subgiant, giant, and
supergiant stars, though I don't have the exact statistics at hand.

3) Going through the UWPs I'm struck by the large number of size '1'
worlds.  I'm not sure why this is, but it may be worth further study. 
Hopefully it is not a repeat of the T4 bad UWP data problem (where all
the law levels turn out to be exactly the same as the government code).

4) Under alliegence, many worlds are listed as 'Na' for non-aligned. 
This doesn't mesh with all the maps of Known Space I've ever seen, which
clearly show most of the sector being part of the Solomani Confederation
and the remainder belonging to the Imperium.  While you could say the
non-aligned worlds are "associate" members of the Confederation, this
makes no sense since by being associate members of the Confederation,
they are by default *aligned* with something.

>There is also two stars which are in an empty Hex. Do we
> have to move or  create a world in this Hex??

   This should not be the case, since I made sure that the Known Stars
had hex locations that corresponded with an existing system.  If I did
goof however, I'll recheck everything and fix it in the final draft.

Regards,

Harold

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 18:55:02 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: Fighters revisted

At 02:08 AM 4/10/97 +1000, you wrote:

>Honestly, what is there to do in a future fighter?  The pilot says i want
>to get there and off he goes, the pilot cant handle dodging and split
>second manuevring, especially when were talking about speed of light
>weapons, so the computer will do that.  A pilot cant handle really high G
>acceleration, so automation (future hydrolics?) will do that also.

then why even send a pilot?  A missle, controlled by a MFD, can be flown out
to a point where it goes active and attacks the next thing that meets it's
target profile.  You want pico-second reaction times and the ability to
withstand 50+ g's?  Don't send what is essentialy a passenger along.

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   clown outfits.       -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 02:52:50 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Yet more Pigeons

On Wed, 9 Apr 1997 17:29:21 -0400, you wrote:

> 	Let's see... Pigeon guidance was being implemented in order to
> guide what?  Blind people?  Little old ladies?  High explosive warheads
> whose sole reason for existence was killing large numbers of people in =
an
> unpleasant fashion and causing massive property damage?

Let's not forget "embarrassing".

We're under attack by WHAT-guided bombs!?!

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 97 21:47:53 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Pigeon Power!

On 04/09/97 at 10:52 AM,  Kenneth Winland <kwinland@chass.utoronto.ca>
said:

> > Hey! Did the British do that too?  In the states they trained pidgeons to
> > guide glide bombs to their targets.  I think it was, the bahaviorist, BF
> > Skinner's project.  I don't know if the project went past lab testing, but
> > from what I've heard it would have worked very well.  Well except for the
> > poor bird. ;->

> 	I thought it was chicken-guided? 

Could be, all I'm going on is lecture notes from a psych class I took many
moons ago.  My Prof was a behaviorist, so we heard a lot about Skinner. <G>

>They continued working on it past WWII, but captured German TV-Guided
>technology was better, and by '50 the tubes were starting to get smaller.

Was the original German TV-Guidance wire or radio based?  If I'm recalling
it right, they were experimenting with a wire guided bomb from launched
seaplanes to attack shipping.


Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 02:52:52 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

On Wed, 9 Apr 1997 14:37:25 +0000, you wrote:

> > Guns Guns Guns is a pan-game system weapons design system by Greg =
Porter,
> > author of T4 CSC. It is a rather gearhead oriented system, that then
> > includes scads of conversion tables to the game system of your choice=
 in
> > the back (which includes TNE, T4 and MegaT).
>=20
> So, if I'm reading you right, this game system is directly related to=20
> T4?

Not specifically.  It was designed for BTRC's TimeLords(tm) because
that game already used a large number of weapon "facts" to define
weaponry.  3G3 (third edition) was released last month, and uses its
own rules to build weapons.  The last 40 pages or so give you specific
procedures to convert any weapon-- built using the 3G3 rules-- into a
number of other RPGs (including Corps, GURPS, Cyberpunk, MasterBook,
T4, TNE, Battlelords of the 23rd Century, Nexus, Feng Shui, Heavy
Gear, and the HERO Games system).

> I can use it to design T4 weapons by using the actual T4 conversion=20
> tables?  You mean I don't have to play a GM's hunch when converting=20
> to T4.
>=20
> If this is so, I had no idea.  I thought it was for another game=20
> system.  I'll definitely get it if it is directly related to T4.

Let me just define the procedure for building weapons with 3G3.

1) Build your weapon using the 3G3 rules in the front two-thirds of
   the book.  The procedure is very detailed and takes the same route
   as FF&S (regarding realism and accuracy).

2) Once you have the weapon built with 3G3 attributes, you use the
   procedure for the appropriate RPG to define the weapon in terms of
   that system.  By designing a weapon once, you can introduce that
   weapon into *any* of the RPG systems included in the last 40 pages!

That's it!

Someone mentioned that CSC had rules to design equipment.  Since that
book was also written by Greg Porter, I can only assume that many of
the weapon design rules for 3G3 were altered slightly and included in
CSC.  So here's *my* question: Can you build weapons using CSC?

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 21:08:54 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Missiles+fighters II

At 10:57 am 04/10/97 +1000, you wrote:
>
>ANother thing that occured to me, the two major draw backs for fighters
>seems to be a) no ship-killing weapon and b) no effective defense, since
>performance doesnt seem to help much.
>
>I dont have anything for point b) but point a) i have already mentioned in
>another post some intresting, albeit short ranged, missile weapons that
>pack a punch.  Another modification would be that a missile would have no
>fuel or engine.  The fighter zooms in and "drops" the missile, the missile
>would continue to travel at the speed and vector of its initial drop and
>hit the capital ship.

	Not bloody likely, unless the capital ship is completely dead in space,
without even attitude thrusters. Either you launch it an incredible
distance off, in which case I've got plenty of time to shoot it down, or
change my projected position at intercept by a small amount, or you try to
come in close and die before you launch it.

	Now, if you've got several hundred of these fighters, all manned by
suiciders, you could come at me from all directions, each launching several
of these. My capital ship will kill most of the fighters and/or missiles,
but there's a miniscule chance that one of the remaining missiles might
possible hit me.

	But I doubt it.
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 21:00:09 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

At 02:37 pm 04/09/97 +0000, you wrote:
>
>> Guns Guns Guns is a pan-game system weapons design system by Greg Porter,
>> author of T4 CSC. It is a rather gearhead oriented system, that then
>> includes scads of conversion tables to the game system of your choice in
>> the back (which includes TNE, T4 and MegaT).
>
>Bruce,
>
>So, if I'm reading you right, this game system is directly related to 
>T4?

	Well, it's what Greg used to create the weapons in T4. It's actually for a
different game (I believe his own game), but provides rules in the back for
determining stats for a bunch-o-games (CORPS, GURPS, Timelords, Masterbook,
TNE, T4, Hero, Cyberpunk 2020, Battlelords, Nexus, Heavy Gear). Online, you
can even place a secure order for an electronic version (Adobe Acrobat),
with spreadsheets (various formats), and download it a day later. That's
what I did, and it's incredibly cheap. Don't take my word for it, go look
yourself.

	Actually, I'm embarrassed to admit I don't even remember how much it cost,
or the URL of the online store that sold it to me. But you can get there
from Greg's web page.

>I can use it to design T4 weapons by using the actual T4 conversion 
>tables?  You mean I don't have to play a GM's hunch when converting 
>to T4.

	Yes.

>If this is so, I had no idea.  I thought it was for another game 
>system.  I'll definitely get it if it is directly related to T4.

	Again, not directly related, but useable. I haven't decided whether I like
it yet, but I'm rather persnickety. Greg seems very thorough. The biggest
issue I've seen, browsing through it, is that no matter how big a weapon
gets, his T4 conversion produces a damage of 3D. Period.

	Regardless of my personal opinion about this stuff, I'd still recommend it
to any gearhead, if just as a resource. Greg does good work, and it's quite
cheap (around US$15, I believe).
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 20:42:45 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Small fighters vs. big fighters

At 12:50 am 04/09/97 -0500, you wrote:
>At 06:34 PM 4/8/97 -0600, "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net> wrote:
><snip>
>>	If my fire control system is too stupid to realize the angular deviations
>>caused by the different positions of my sensors and my weapons on a
>>non-point-sized hull, I shouldn't be in space in the first place.
>>
>
>If your FCS is built by man it can be as stupid as man is.<G> How could the
>FCS try to compensate ie larger area of fire, greater ROF etc then?


	No. Simple geometry.


>>	As for CSC agility DM, Greg himself acknowledges his VEHICLE system
>>doesn't work for space combat, and was never intended to. Go back and pull
>>of some of the posts on the actual chances of hitting an object at various
>>ranges (by Merrick, I believe). 
>
>Hmmm.. I do not recall ever hearing that from him, just call me "Doubting
>Thomas" <G>, but is not just his VEHICLE system it is T4's. At some point
>the two systems will have to mesh.

	Perhaps. It took us forever to convince him that a tank might want to fire
at a spacecraft. Incidentally, I wasn't referring to the design system, I
was referring to the combat system. So the "-25 size DM" is probably
irrelevant to any space combat discussions.

>Yes I have seen those posts but they IMO seem to deal in "ideal" firing
>situations, not what would be routinely found in combat. If the FCS will
>only be as accurate as the data supplied by sensors.

	And that's what most of the posts refererred to. Sensors in space can be
surprisingly accurate. Unless you not only handwave that Traveller ships
can get rid of lots of heat, but that they do so by magically making it
disappear. I can think about accepting "super radiators;" it's much harder
to accept "super heat vanishing devices."

>Also Dave are you aware that the "Admiralty" part of your web site has lots
>of missing links?

	Unfortunately, most of my web site has missing links. I switched
providers; since all of my web pages had my email address on them (IDIOT!),
I have to edit each one before reposting it. I'm more than a bit behind,
and likely to remain that way for a while. If there's anything specific
you're looking for, I'll be happy to move it to the top of my priority list.
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 23:58:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: ToddMoody@aol.com
Subject: computers and fighters stuff

I read a short story several years ago about a fighter attacking a planet and
it went into detail about how the pilot was wired to the fighter and he was
"one" with the fighter and sort of became the fighter.  An interesting
concept. He flew be reflex and his senses were tied into the sensor system of
the spacecraft. 

In an old supplement a friend of mine had it had detail on robotic mechanics
(like R2 in Star Wars on the x-wing) and a thing called an "eternity circuit"
that would repair the ship to original configuration given enough time and
raw material.  Pretty high TL if I remember like 15 and up.

As for the computer stuff there are a couple of other options that are common
in SF, especially semi-recent stuff.  Jacking-in through a direct connection
to your nervous system into your brain is one option.  This would be a VR
interface, Cyber doesn't have to be punk necessarily.
 Voice control is another.  I see a  Heechee (Frederick Pohl) concept with a
Virtual personality that can be holographically displayed, and interacted
with just like another person.  Perhaps programmed with a specific
personality of a famous person from history. 

 I think you are right on with the programming stuff though.  VR interface
would be the simplest way that I can think of unless you can envision a
holographic display and simply voice input for the programming.  That would
entail more of a language format rather than imagry (hard to pronounce images
unless you are a big fan of the artist formerly known as ...) but I guess you
could name the icons and make that into a language.  That might actually
work.  

Disregard my stream of consciousness.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 13:45:49 +0930 (CST)
From: David Sarkies <oedipus@student.adelaide.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Fighters - Revisted II

I would like to just make a comment on what I think of fighters (I have
only just subscribed to the newsgroup so I don't know what's been said
before). I believe that to battleships, fighters can be a right pain in
the backside.
If you were a battleship capitain, what would you rather pefer: a head on
fight with another battleship or a fight with hundreds of little ships
that can weave in and out of your defense net. I know what I would prefer.

May the grace and peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all
Oedipus.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 22:19:58 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Fighters-just my .02Cr

 
> Second, missles are actually fairly nice (They actually can do quite a
> bit of damage to a Capital ship--I once took out a Sylea BB with 4 400dt
> SDBs!), but you mount them with external grapples, and you either have
> a MFD gunner in the fighter (ie a two man fighter ala the Tomcat IIRC), 
> or have some MFDs on the Flag Ship with 1000AU Laser communicators.

I bet this was in unmodified BR, right?

BR was seriously broken (all tasks were on level too easy comopared
to BL).  Also, missile damage was way, way way out of whack.  If a
det-laser in BR did more than a damage of 3, something was wrong.
You draw a missile damage card in BR and get a 1 to 6, right?  Then
double it for Outstanding success.  A *single* missile in BR
(unfixed) can kill anything (and a det-laser missile, at that).
Also, since tasks are all one level too easy (look at the TNE to BR
task conversion chart near the end) getting Outstanding Success is a
cake walk.

- -Merrick

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 22:25:14 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Fighters: Stack them Compensators!

Stacking g-comp is a serious violation of traveller canon.  Yeah, I
hate to be the super canon cop, but if you allow this, toss all
traveller naval history out the window.  It also breaks all
published ship designs since any military ship that *doesn't* do
this (if allowed) is toast.

- -Merrick

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 00:51:42 -0700
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Design and Dune

>From: Bill Rutherford <worj@topgun.cinecom.com>
>Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

>Remember the movie "Dune"?  Completely aside from its other
>qualities/failings, I thought the polished brass-and-oak decor was neat!  It
>said clearly that it was hi-tech enough that it didn't even have to LOOK
>hi-tech!  (Aesthetic) form wasn't required to follow function.

Dune heavily informs my sense of pre-Civil War Imperial aesthetics.  Arbellatra's 
reforms included cleaning up the look of an Imperium that had grown decadent since 
Cleon's time.  These led eventually to the clean lines typified by the Keith brothers' 
artwork.  

- --Glenn

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 23:19:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com>
Subject: What to Call M:0 RICE/BARD Papers?

Carlos' efforts on the Geonee are inspiring me to do some work on my
favorite underdeveloped variant of humaniti, the Suerrat.  But thoughts
on their astrography and position leads to the question...

The TML already sees RICE (Regency Institute for Cultural Exchange) and
BARD (Bureau of Aggregate Reference Data) Papers for worlds in the TNE
milieu.  But what should we call such things written from a T4, Milieu:0
vantage point?

ZIPP?  (Zhunastu Industries Planetary Profile)
ICCI?  (Imperial Contact and Cultural Information)
SARI?  (Sylean Astrographic Research Initiative)

Your suggestions, serious and tongue-in-cheek both, would be appreciated.

- ----------------------------*------------------------*------------------------
 Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett  |"Nullum magnum ingenium | GURPS fan, Amiga user,
http://www.io.com/~jlockett | sine mixtura dementiae | Shakespearean scholar,
  Email: jlockett@io.com    | fuit." -- Seneca       | actor and director.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 15:42:01 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Subject: Fighters revisted

On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, Douglas E. Berry wrote:

> At 02:08 AM 4/10/97 +1000, you wrote:
> 
> >Honestly, what is there to do in a future fighter?  The pilot says i want
> >to get there and off he goes, the pilot cant handle dodging and split
> >second manuevring, especially when were talking about speed of light
> >weapons, so the computer will do that.  A pilot cant handle really high G
> >acceleration, so automation (future hydrolics?) will do that also.
> 
> then why even send a pilot?  A missle, controlled by a MFD, can be flown out
> to a point where it goes active and attacks the next thing that meets it's
> target profile.  You want pico-second reaction times and the ability to
> withstand 50+ g's?  Don't send what is essentialy a passenger along.


You will need a pilot for a few reasons, the main reason is the type of
BB-killing missiles im thinking of are very short ranged.  Also, why waste
space for control mechnisms and engines and fuel to get the 50g
propulsion?  Fill that space with High Explosives.



c'ya hate to be ya,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


Once you choose, you become the servant of that choice.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 22:52:20 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Fighters - Revisted II

 
> I would like to just make a comment on what I think of fighters (I have
> only just subscribed to the newsgroup so I don't know what's been said
> before). I believe that to battleships, fighters can be a right pain in
> the backside.
> If you were a battleship capitain, what would you rather pefer: a head on
> fight with another battleship or a fight with hundreds of little ships
> that can weave in and out of your defense net. I know what I would prefer.

The fighters.  A hit by the enemy BB is death (spinal).  The
fighters get killed off piecemeal, maybe do some damage here and
there before dying.

- -Merrick
 

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1167
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest      Thursday, April 10 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1168



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Missiles+fighters II
Re: The Half-Die
ECM Decoys
CSC Armor?
Re: Missiles+fighters II
Missiles - what ranges???
Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters
Re: Sensor strength analysis
Re: Fighters - Revisted II
Atmospheric Pressure / Altitude ?
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Re: The Half-Die
Is there a Mathematician in the House?
Re: Fighters revisited
Re: What to Call M:0 RICE/BARD Papers?
Re: Subject: Fighters revisted
Re: Fighters BB Killing Weapons
Spectacular success/fail with KBv2.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 22:56:55 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Missiles+fighters II

 
> pack a punch.  Another modification would be that a missile would have no
> fuel or engine.  The fighter zooms in and "drops" the missile, the missile
> would continue to travel at the speed and vector of its initial drop and
> hit the capital ship.  Taking away fuel/engine from the missile would
> leave more room for explosives.
 
Explosives are a needless expense for most traveller missiles since
the closing velocity typical of such encounters means that the
kinetic energy of the missile exceeds any chemical energy you can
pack in.

Besides, if the fighter is close enough to drop this coasting
missile with any chance of hitting (assuming the target isn't
cojmpletely unaware of it being there) is has been dead for some
time already :-)

- -Merrick 

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 97 22:40:37 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: The Half-Die

On 04/09/97 at 07:05 AM,  34zbtxq@cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu (Susan M. Shock)
said:

> I would personally like to thank Marc MIller and Imperium Games for not
> invalidating the $3.50 I spent on d3's when T4 came out, Now my d3's
> don't have to languish along side the various other forms of polyhedral
> dice I no longer use. Thanks!

HA!

I paid $0.50 for my 10 d3's...but then I made them...<g>, and I'd be just
as happy if the d3's were totally dropped from the game.

Shucks if we're going to have d3's, let's go ahead and have d10, and d20's
too!


Eris,
    the Heretic!
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 97 23:05:11 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: ECM Decoys

On 04/08/97 at 10:36 AM,  shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) said:

> >> Trouble is, you *can't* "jam" IR. Well you can put out "flares", but
> >> sensors can easily ignore ones that aren't radiating at the "right" >>
> wavelengths/intensities.

That's why a warship will have deployable decoys and drones that radiate
the proper frequencies, along with EM jamming, sand casting and everything
else you can come up with.  If they're good enough they'll be able to spoof
off some missiles.  You'd probably communicate with them with narrow band
maser so they could be controlled and their ECM could be constantly
updated.  They'd have to be powered to keep up with the ship and match her
maneuvers.  Expensive? You bet! 

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 97 22:27:07 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: CSC Armor?

On 04/09/97 at 12:50 AM,  Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net> said:

> At an armor value of CSC 64 or USP 12, what would the stats be for PD or
> any weapon to engage of range before warhead deployment?

Ok now, do I have this right...

Using CSC, if you know you want to end up with an AV of 64 and you know
what material you'll be using, you just need to figure out the actual
thickness of the armor.  In CSC, Greg goes from cm to AV, but not from AV
to cm, so I *think* I have this conversion right.


Going from cm to AV you'd do:  

    AV = (armor thickness in cm)^(1/3) * (Material Toughness)

Going from AV to cm you'd rearrange the formula to be:

    (armor in cm) = (AV / (Material Toughness))^3

Your example:  AV = 64, 

Material Toughness = 11 (Superdense)

    armor = (64/11)^3 = 197cm

Material Toughness = 9 (Crystaliron)

    armor (64/9)^3 = 360cm


Isn't this right?


Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 16:25:18 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Missiles+fighters II

On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, David J. Golden wrote:

> >I dont have anything for point b) but point a) i have already mentioned in
> >another post some intresting, albeit short ranged, missile weapons that
> >pack a punch.  Another modification would be that a missile would have no
> >fuel or engine.  The fighter zooms in and "drops" the missile, the missile
> >would continue to travel at the speed and vector of its initial drop and
> >hit the capital ship.
> 
> 	Not bloody likely, unless the capital ship is completely dead in space,
> without even attitude thrusters. Either you launch it an incredible
> distance off, in which case I've got plenty of time to shoot it down, or
> change my projected position at intercept by a small amount, or you try to
> come in close and die before you launch it.
[snip]

True, it was just a thought.  These missiles would be luanched AFTER a
barrage of Engine-seeking missile are - ie unless you do want to lose your
engines, then youd probably have them off, and youd be drifting...  


I was thinking along the lines of a combined arms attack.

c'ya hate to be ya,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


Once you choose, you become the servant of that choice.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 97 22:55:34 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Missiles - what ranges???

On 04/08/97 at 06:34 PM,  shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) said:

> You fire a missile at where you *think* the target will be when the
> missile gets there. If the target is "nearby" when the missile gets into
> range of the *missile's* sensors, then it can try to correct its course
> to intercept. But the greater the range you fire from, the more time the
> target has to manuever, and the less chance that the missile will have
> the fuel for an intercept.

> The "limiting case" for missiles is the inert projectile with no
> maneuvering capability. It can only hit if the target is where it was
> aimed for when it gets there. Once a missile has used up its manuever
> capability, it's an inert projectile, and worthless if it is far enough
> away for a course change to get the target out of its path.

Quite true.  I imagine space missiles fired from beyond their fuel range
would be programmed to boost to an intercept velocity on a projected
intercept course, go inert and coast in, then relight their thrusters for a
closing charge. This wouldn't always be possible, but having a few seconds
of maneuver at the target point could make the difference between a certain
miss and a possible hit.

Two questions:  

At what range does a Nuclear pumped x-ray laser head have to fire to have a
chance to hit?  Very short, within 30,000km..right?

Don't you suspect the lasers in the laser heads are non-grav
focused..*however* grav focusing is supposed to work?


Eris 
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 97 00:06:49 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters

On 04/08/97 at 10:44 AM,  shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) said:

> > How much the fighter can evade depends on how fast it can turn, how
> > much g load the pilot can take, how fast it can accelerate, and how
> > much time it takes the sensor/shot to make the round trip.

> Since the g load is on his back, there's no likely design where it's a
> factor worth worrying about. Even 9g with no compensator is only an
> annoyance (for a "typical pilot" not for me or thee). So it comes down to
> acceleration and light lag (since we are assuming lasers).

Leonard, I think we pretty much agree, but you're missing, I think, my main
point. It wasn't g-load, it was TIME to turn.  I suspect you *know* all
that follows, but just in case I'm visulizing it wrong...

Visualize the ship travelling straight forward, accelerating at 6g. If it
can thrust, instantaniously and directly in any direction (including
aft).., but lets say to port..then after one second it will have moved
forward by some distance that can be called 0-relative, and starboard by 30
meters.  This would be the *best* a ship could do on any heading.  The ship
would be somewhere in a spherical volume 60 meters in diameter (plus
whatever it's former vector and velocity was, but that's probably a *known*
value).  

However, most ships won't be able to apply 6g anywhere except along their
bow to stern "spine."  They will have to turn to apply thrust at some angle
to their previous vector.  The *time* it takes to turn will limit their
lateral displacement.  Let's say that the ship can turn 90 degrees in 1
second: This means if it turns away from its former heading under power for
the entire second it will have applied its acceleration along an arc from
its former heading to directly port or starboard (to stay in 2 dimensions
for the moment). The volume that the ship can be in is now *much* less than
60 meters in diameter, it would be shaped like a sector of a sphere...I
think. ;->

??Formula something like??

V= 1/6(pi)r^3  V = 1/6(3.1416)15^3 = 1767m

The 10m sphere has a volume of 524m, so you have a 30% prob of success on
any shot placed AT RANDOM, and a much better chance with a little
intellegent prediction of your target's future course.  

Or am I totally out in left field here?
      

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 97 00:10:48 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Sensor strength analysis

On 04/09/97 at 03:27 PM,  anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman) said:

> I've been using such a system (and posted it to the list) for about 5
> years now. Give each sensor type (optical,radar,mass,neutrino) a factor,
> give each ship a profile with factors for (optical, radar, mass,
> neutrino) and some rules for it. The total lack of interest in my system
> last time I posted it reduced my interest in writing it for the list (I
> use my own design system etc so some modifications has to be made) but
> I'll repost it if there's any interest.

Anders, I'm interested. If you don't post it to the list, how about sending
me a private email copy.  

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 16:31:42 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Fighters - Revisted II

On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, David Sarkies wrote:

Which is what i thought when i initially made a similiar post - but now,
id have to agree that fighters have there place, but against a space
battleship in traveller they get blown away.  Thats why im working on
ideas to add umpth back to fighters :)

> I would like to just make a comment on what I think of fighters (I have
> only just subscribed to the newsgroup so I don't know what's been said
> before). I believe that to battleships, fighters can be a right pain in
> the backside.
> If you were a battleship capitain, what would you rather pefer: a head on
> fight with another battleship or a fight with hundreds of little ships
> that can weave in and out of your defense net. I know what I would prefer.
> 
> May the grace and peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all
> Oedipus.
> 
> 


c'ya hate to be ya,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


Once you choose, you become the servant of that choice.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:08:11 -0800
From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
Subject: Atmospheric Pressure / Altitude ?

What is the formula for determining the atmospheric pressure at a given
altitude ?

Given the atmospheric pressure at sea level, the planets gravity, mean
temperature, diameter, & density what formula should I use to calculate
the pressure at a given altitude ?

If the average density of the gas involved makes a difference (and it
might) how do you include this factor in your calculations ?

I am assuming a spherical planet.  I am further assuming that the
planets day length is not so long or short that planetary rotaion speed
issues need to be considered.

I have the atmospheric pressure table J Andew Keith provided in The
Mountain Environment (Gamelords 1983) but I am looking for a formula or
set of formulas.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 00:03:07 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

t!
> 
> Someone mentioned that CSC had rules to design equipment.  Since that
> book was also written by Greg Porter, I can only assume that many of
> the weapon design rules for 3G3 were altered slightly and included in
> CSC.  So here's *my* question: Can you build weapons using CSC?

I've got CSC.  The design sequence in the back is for T4 
vehicles--not weapons.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 07:25:07 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: The Half-Die

On Wed, 09 Apr 97 22:40:37 -0500, you wrote:

> On 04/09/97 at 07:05 AM,  34zbtxq@cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu (Susan M. Shock)
> said:
>=20
> > I would personally like to thank Marc MIller and Imperium Games for =
not
> > invalidating the $3.50 I spent on d3's when T4 came out, Now my d3's
> > don't have to languish along side the various other forms of =
polyhedral
> > dice I no longer use. Thanks!
>=20
> HA!
>=20
> I paid $0.50 for my 10 d3's...but then I made them...<g>, and I'd be =
just
> as happy if the d3's were totally dropped from the game.
>=20
> Shucks if we're going to have d3's, let's go ahead and have d10, and =
d20's
> too!

Ever see a d7?  And, no, I'm not talking in Star Trek terminology :)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 00:05:05 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Is there a Mathematician in the House?

>Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 16:56:18 +0000
>From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>

>I'm working on the idea, like in Marc's new task system, of
>considering any throw where 3 sixes pop up as a spectacular failure.
...

>What is the probability that 3 sixes will pop up when you throw 4D?

There are always two ways to work out a probability problem.  The first is
to count the possible outcomes that meet your criterea, and divide by the
number of possible outcomes.  The second is to simplify the world by
splitting the problem into collections of probabilities that you like, and
then multiply those by the conditional chance of the event happening that
you want.

Using the first method:

Total possible rolls: 6*6*6*6 = 1296.
Rolls that have exactly three sixes:
1666 2666 3666 4666 5666
6166 6266 6366 6466 6566
6616 6626 6636 6646 6656
6661 6662 6663 6664 6665

And, of course, one way of getting four sixes: 6666.

Thus there is a 20/1296 chance of getting exactly three sixes, and a
21/1296 chance of getting three or four sixes.

The problem here is that this does not generalize well.  We now use the
second method, and hope that we get the same answer.  With luck, the second
method is easier to program into a computer or work out by hand for higher
numbers:

P(3 sixes, 4 dice) = P(d1=6)P(3 sixes given d1=6) + P(d1 != 6)P(3 sixes
given d1 != 6)

A mathematician would write this
P(3 sixes | 4 dice) = P(d1=6)P(3 sixes | d1=6) + P(d1 != 6)P(3 sixes | d1 != 6)

P(d1=6) = 1/6
P(d1 != 6) = 5/6

The chance of getting exactly two sixes on three dice is
	(5/6 * 1/6 * 1/6) + (1/6 * 5/6 * 1/6) + (1/6 * 1/6 * 5/6) = 15/216 ->
	P(3 sixes | d1=6) = P(2 sixes on 3 dice) = 15/216

The chance of getting exactly three sixes on three dice is 1/6 * 1/6 * 1/6,
or 1/216. ->
	P(3 sixes | d1 != 6) = P(all 3 dice are 6) = 1/216

thus

P(3 sixes | 4 dice) = 1/6 * 15/216 + 5/6 * 1/216
		= 15/1296 + 5/1296
		= 20/1296

Now, to get the chance of getting three or four sixes on four dice, use
P(3 or 4 sixes | 4 dice) = P(3 sixes | 4 dice) + P(4 sixes | 4 dice) =
	20/1296 + 1/1296 = 21/1296.

This generalizes fairly well.  Given the numbers above, you can break out
the chances for five dice either by counting (there are quire a few
options, so figure out a formula) or by using the numbers we just got and
the splitting rule (known as Baye's law) to express the chance of three
sixes on five dice in terms of the chances of getting fewer sixes on four
dice:

P(three sixes | five dice) = P(d1=6)*P(three sixes | d1 = 6) +
			+  P(d1 != 6)*P(three sixes | d1 != 6) +

Clearly, getting three sixes on five dice if the first one is a six is the
same as getting two sixes on four dice, as we know what the first one is.

The numebrs should fall out from there.

>How about for 5D?
>
>For 6D?
>
>And for 7D?

Drop me a line if they do not turn up easily enough - I must run to bed
now.  Morning comes distressingly early.

Scott

- -------
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu.  http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz/
"You die, she dies, EVERYbody dies" - Heavy Metal
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment results" -
Calvin Coolidge, attrib. by Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 00:36:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Fighters revisited

> Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 18:55:02 -0700
> From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
> 
> >Honestly, what is there to do in a future fighter?  The pilot says i want
> >to get there and off he goes, the pilot cant handle dodging and split
> >second manuevring, especially when were talking about speed of light
> >weapons, so the computer will do that.  A pilot cant handle really high G
> >acceleration, so automation (future hydrolics?) will do that also.
> 
> then why even send a pilot?  A missle, controlled by a MFD, can be flown out
> to a point where it goes active and attacks the next thing that meets it's
> target profile.  You want pico-second reaction times and the ability to
> withstand 50+ g's?  Don't send what is essentialy a passenger along.

Yes, and here's one of the points at which "reasonable technological
speculation" runs headlong into "fun role-playing game," and there just
ain't no way 'round it.  The whole reason people are arguing so
passionately for fighters is that fighters are a cool thing for players to
sit in or shoot at.  No matter how you slice it, with Trav physics and
tech, drones/missiles are *infinitely* preferable to fighters -- but
there's no glory in having your character say "OK, I push the button that
launches a dozen drones at the enemy formation, attack pattern 2-C."
There *is* glory in shouting "Red Leader, I'm going in!" as you aim your
nose at the Big Shiny Wedge of Doom, turbines screaming into the vacuum of
space. :)

As I've pointed out before, Traveller is 1980ish sociology, politics,
economics, military science, and so forth, with a few key technologies
(fusion, Jump) layered on top, but *without* any real working out of the
wider effects of those technologies.  And that's *essential*, if players
are going to be able to drop into the game world without reading a dozen
doctoral theses on how things work in the 57th century.  Players need to
be able to assume that, usually, unless told otherwise, everything works
about the same as it would in present-day society -- a silly assumption in
terms of plausability, but *necessary for a game*!

The problem is that the illusion falls apart if you stare at it too hard.
We've always had fighters in Traveller, but it's also always been the case
that they were silly in military terms.  They stayed part of the game
world because the 1980s had fighters, "Star Wars" had fighters, B5 had
fighters, and, damn it, players *like* fighters.  To quote Tom Servo, "It
just *is*!"

By the way, leaving rant mode and returning to the specific topic at hand,
the USN is *very* nervous about automated weapon systems -- more so after
the Vincennes incident, of course.  Their term for how human judgement
controls weapon systems is "Human In The Loop," or HITL.  So (for
example), your AEGIS system will track 75 airborne targets, discriminate
planes from cruise missiles from decoys, come up with a response mix for
your ship and the five nearby, allocate weapons accordingly, and put a
summary of all this on a console, all in a few seconds.  A box appears
with the equivalent of "OK?" on it, which the human selects if he agrees.
Then the AEGIS system automatically deploys all the weapons.  Kind of
scary, really, especially because the pressure to hit OK *now* (before
those cruise missiles get a few km closer) is a bit overwhelming, 

And for some systems, e.g. Phalanx, you *can't* have a human in the loop
- -- the required reaction time is just too short.  That makes the Navy
*very* nervous, which is one reason the Stark's stern Phalanx was in
standby mode the night that Exocet came visiting.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 02:03:03 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: What to Call M:0 RICE/BARD Papers?

I like these.  :)

> ICCI?  (Imperial Contact and Cultural Information)

pronounced "iky"?

> SARI?  (Sylean Astrographic Research Initiative)

pronounced "sorry"?

LOL!

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 07:55:19 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Subject: Fighters revisted

On Thu, 10 Apr 1997 15:42:01 +1000 (EST), you wrote:

> On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, Douglas E. Berry wrote:
>=20
> > At 02:08 AM 4/10/97 +1000, you wrote:
> >=20
> > >Honestly, what is there to do in a future fighter?  The pilot says i=
 want
> > >to get there and off he goes, the pilot cant handle dodging and =
split
> > >second manuevring, especially when were talking about speed of light
> > >weapons, so the computer will do that.  A pilot cant handle really =
high G
> > >acceleration, so automation (future hydrolics?) will do that also.
> >=20
> > then why even send a pilot?  A missle, controlled by a MFD, can be =
flown out
> > to a point where it goes active and attacks the next thing that meets=
 it's
> > target profile.  You want pico-second reaction times and the ability =
to
> > withstand 50+ g's?  Don't send what is essentialy a passenger along.
>=20
>=20
> You will need a pilot for a few reasons, the main reason is the type of
> BB-killing missiles im thinking of are very short ranged.

If your missiles are extremely short *ranged*, you could still use
them as submunitions in a larger missile.

> Also, why waste
> space for control mechnisms and engines and fuel to get the 50g
> propulsion?  Fill that space with High Explosives.

Why waste all the space for fighters, fighter fuel, launch tubes,
pilots quarters, flight deck quarters, etc. back aboard the carrier
when you can make far better use filling up that space with missile
bays and magazines?

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:24:22 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Fighters BB Killing Weapons

>Wrong.  Antimatter in the Traveller universe isn't available as a
>power source (and this would _include_ harnessing it for use as a
>weapon) until TL 17+.

Using antimatter as a power source is totally different from using it as an
explosive. The hard part is storing antimatter safely and that is done
today in magnetic bottles at cryo temps. Just shut down the magnetic bottle
and KABOOM.

If you postulate cheap antimatter however I don't see why you need a
fighter to deploy it. Due to G-comp limits and human limits on Gs to take
the fighter that depolys the 1000 G 300 s missile would be analogous to
infantrymen on foot launching cruise missiles. So what I'm saying is your
1000 G missile won't make the fighters useful as BB killers as the BBs
themselves kan shoot the same missiles.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 01:59:59 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Spectacular success/fail with KBv2.0

Thanks to John Macpherson's help with calculating probabilities, I 
was able to iron out the spectacular success/fail rules for use with 
KBv2.0 tonight.

This was the last thing that needed to be developed and bugged, and 
now KBv2.0 is ready for play.

Yeah, I know, some of you are already using KBv2.0 in your games, and 
I thank all of you for all of the private words of encouragement you 
have sent me regarding this task system.  With this post, we've now 
got a SS/SF system, and the whole task system is now complete.

Here's what I've come up with for rolling SS and SF, and here's 
the KBv2.0 difficutly codes for easy reference.

		Easy				Auto/2D
		Average				3D
		Difficult				4D
		Formidable			5D
		Staggering			6D
		Impossible			7D

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------



On with the SS/SF rules.  I'll compare the thinking behind the KBv2.0 
rules to Marc Miller's new T4 task fix that he has indicated (to the 
list with a post and by printing it on the new T4 GM screen) he will 
include in the new revised edition of T4.

Let's take SF first.

Marc is using 3 sixes for SF in his new task system for T4 (any time 
3 sixes pop up in a task roll, you've got a spectacular failure on 
your hands).  

It's a logical step from the 2 sixes rule from the original (and 
still current) T4 SF rule.  The problem with Marc using 3 sixes is 
that, under his system, you cannot roll SF with Easy, Average, or 
even Difficult task rolls (under Marc's "improved" T4 system, Easy is 
1D, Average is 2D, and Difficult is 2.5D).

I have a problem with this in that you can only royally screw up with 
Formidable and harder tasks.  I can understand the Easy category 
being exempt from SF (it is in the current T4 rules too), because 
those tasks are just about automatic, and there's no chance of a 
royal blunder.

But Average and Difficult task throws are exempt too?  I've got a 
real problem with that.

With John's probability help, I calculated the percentage of rolling 
3 sixes under the KBv2.0 difficulty codes, and I like what I see. 

So much so, in fact, that I am adopting them as the official SF rule 
for the KBv2.0 task system.   In KBv2.0, SF is not possible with Easy 
tasks, but every other difficulty category is fair game.  Here's the 
numbers.



SPECTACULAR FAILURE RULE FOR KBv2.0:

Anytime 3 sixes are rolled for a task attempt, a spectacular failure 
has occured.  On Easy task throws, SF is not possible.  The harder a 
task becomes, the more likely SF will be rolled.

Difficulty				%SF
- ---------------			---------
Easy				0
Average				0.46
Difficult				1.54
Formidable			3.22
Staggering			5.36
Impossible			7.81



OK, let's discuss SS.  First, I'll talk about what I think is wrong 
with Marc's SS in his new T4 task fix, then I'll explain why I think 
the SS system I've chosen for KBv2.0 is much better.

In Marc's new T4 task system, anytime 3 ones are rolled, a SS has 
occurred.  I find three things wrong with this.

First, like with the SF system Marc is using, SS can only occurr on 
Difficult or harder task throws.  I don't agree with that.  If a task 
is Easy or Average (meaning that they are easier to accomplish than 
Difficult throws), the percentage to roll SS is 0.00%

It doesn't make sense to me that you can't do spectaculary well on an 
Easy or Average task, but you can do it on Difficult and harder 
tasks.

My second problem with Marc's system is akin to this first one.  
Since we are rolling more dice the harder the difficulty (not only 
is SS available only on more difficult task throws, but....),  the 
probability of rolling SS actually GOES UP the harder a task gets.

This seem ass-backwards to me.  It should be easier to roll SS at the 
less difficult categories and harder to roll it in the more difficult 
categories.

As Marc has it now, the percentage to roll SS using his T4 "fixed" 
task system is this:

	Marc's T4 Difficulty Codes			%SS
	--------------------------------			------
	Easy							0.00
	Average							0.00
	Difficult							0.93
	Formidable						0.46
	Staggering						1.54
	Impossible						3.22

That little screwy drop then raise between Difficult and Staggering 
is because of the inclusion of the half die in Marc's system--when 
you are only rolling a D3 instead of a whole die, that one pops up 
much more.

As you can see, though, under Marc's SS rule, the chance of rolling 
a SS is less than 1% if you are rolling a Difficult task, but the 
chance is 3 times as much if you are rolling an Impossible task.

This makes no sense to me.

Thirdly,  I think that a SS rule should work in the opposite 
direction.  One of the genius things about the original T4 task 
system was that the probability of SF went up the harder a task got 
and the probability of SS went down as the throw got harder.

That makes perfect sense to me.  It should be easier to roll SS on 
an Easy task than on an Impossible task, and it should be harder to 
roll SF on an Average task rather than a Staggering task.  The 
original T4 system (I know it had other problems) worked this 
beautifully with its 2 sixes rule for SF and its all ones rule for 
SS.  Marc's change in this rule, under his new system, has screwed 
up this beautiful relationship for SS and SF.

How am I going to fix that in KBv2.0?

"Well, I'll tell ya, pardner," as the Duke used to say.

There are two things governing my thought process as I developed 
this SS rule for KBv2.0.  One is that, as I just stated above, I 
want KBv2.0's SS system to:  1)  be obtainable on Easy throws, and   
2) be harder to obtain with higher difficulty.

The second governing thought is that I like the idea of SS being 
tied to skill level.  It is logical to me that the more skilled you 
are in a particular area, the easier it should be for you to do 
really well at it.

Given this, here's the SS rule for KBv2.0.



SPECTACULAR SUCCESS RULE FOR KBv2.0:

In order to roll a spectacular success, you have to roll the SS 
target number or less when rolling a task.  

SS target number = Skill Level + Dice Code

Task Roll Example with all possible outcomes:
- -------------------------------------------------------
For example, a character with a Stat-7 and a Skill-2, rolling a 
Difficult task, would roll 4 D6 (Difficult tasks require 4D to be 
rolled).  If a 13 or less is rolled (KBv2.0 target number for regular 
success ={(3 x Skill) + Stat}, then the roll is a success.  If 14 
or more is rolled, the task attempt fails.  If 3 (or 4) of the 4 dice 
show sixes, then the task attempt results in spectacular failure.  
And, if 6 or less is rolled (SS target number = Skill Level + Dice 
Code), the task attempt results in a spectacular success.

In this manner, characters with higher skill levels will have better 
chances of achieving SS.  Also, using this method, the chance of 
achieving SS will go down the harder a task becomes.

Note that characters attempting a task with a Default skill can still 
roll SS, but it is a difficult proposition.  They have to roll all 
ones on the throw to achieve SS, and given the amount of dice thrown, 
the chances are that this is not very likely (but this accounts for 
those blind strokes of luck).



Since this SS system is dependent on a character's skill, one table 
of percentages showing the SS chance of success does not apply.  For 
comparison's sake, though, here's a table to show you what an average 
character's (Skill-2, Stat-7) chance of rolling SS would be.

Character has a Skill-2;  his chance of SS would be:

Difficulty			%SS
- ----------			------
Easy			16.67
Average			4.63
Difficult			1.16
Formidable		0.27
Staggering		0.06
Impossible		0.01



And, let's go ahead and look at a character with a skill specialty.

Character has Skill-5;  his chance of SS would be:

Difficulty			%SS
- ----------			------
Easy			58.33
Average			25.93
Difficult			9.72
Formidable		3.24
Staggering		0.99
Impossible		0.28



So, what do you think of my SS/SF system for KBv2.0?

I think it is exactly what the doctor ordered for the twice sick 
(original and Marc's fix) T4 task system.

Let me know.

Kenneth.

	

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1168
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest      Thursday, April 10 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1169



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: CSC Armor?
Idea for Geonee version of the RICE papers.
Re: Mathmo in the house?
Atmospheric pressure
Re: Missiles+Fighters
Re: Mathmo in the house?
[none]
Re: What to Call M:0 RICE/BARD Papers?
Ultimate T4 Task System
Jamming IR Sensors(was Re: AWACS Starship)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 02:09:56 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: CSC Armor?

> Using CSC, if you know you want to end up with an AV of 64 and you know
> what material you'll be using, you just need to figure out the actual
> thickness of the armor.  In CSC, Greg goes from cm to AV, but not from AV
> to cm, so I *think* I have this conversion right.

That is right.  I've been trying to use the CSC codes to come up with 
T4 armor values for the TNE/MT/CT armors that are not printed in the 
T4 books.

I'm having a tough time of it, though.  The CSC was written for 
vehicles, and my guesses for how thick TL 14 Combat Armor (circa 
1105) are not very good.

I'll keep trying.  I need T4 armor values for my circa 1105 armor 
types by the next time we play.

You thinking on this matter may help me too.  I'll try to plug in the 
values backwards as you have suggested.  Maybe I'll come up with 
something.  The true test is to backwards work some T4 armor and 
compare the AV I get with the true T4 AV printed in the book.

If it works, I'll let you know.
 
Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 05:56:06 CST
From: galliand@juno.com (Scott M Galliand)
Subject: Idea for Geonee version of the RICE papers.

I was thinking of a name for the Geonee version of the RICE papers. 
Since, in M0 at least, ADRAT would be responisible somewhat with many of
the functions that go into the RICE papers, how 'bout calling them the
(drumroll please)

ADRAT Cultural and Technological Surveys (ACTS)

They could emphasize the interest of the Geonee in more tech.

Also, you might want to consider writing something more detailed on the
female in Geonee society.  I was thinking of an idea for maybe a
domestic-service-type class (maybe called courtesan?), which would be a
real challenge for RPGing given the attitude of Geonee society.  What do
you think?

Scott

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 12:08:22 +0100
From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Mathmo in the house?

Kenneth Bearden writes:

> I'm working on the idea, like in Marc's new task system, of 
> considering any throw where 3 sixes pop up as a spectacular failure.
> This would be used with KBv2.0

Shurely v2.1? ;-)

[Needs p(3 sixes) for nD, n>= 3]

This is given by p(arrangement contains 3 sixes) * no. of such 
arrangements.

p(3) = p(6)^3 * p(not 6)^(n-3) * [n! / ( (n-3)! 3!)]

where a! is used for a factorial = 1 * 2 * ... * a and a^b is a to 
the power b.

Hence p(3) = (1/6)^3 * (5/6)^(n-3) * n * n-1 * n-2 / 6
           = (1 * 5^(n-3) * n(n-1)(n-2)) / 6^(n+1)

This gives the probability of 3 and only 3 sixes.
The easiest way to get p(3 or more sixes) is to find
p(0), p(1) and p(2). Since the sum of all probabilities = 1,
p(3+) = 1 - (p(0) + p(1) + p(2))

p(0) = (5/6)^n
p(1) = n (1/6) (5/6)^(n-1)
p(2) = 1/2 n(n-1) (1/6)^2 (5/6)^(n-2)

This can be used to rewrite p(3+) as

p(3+) = 1 - (5^n + n * 5^(n-1) + 1/2 *n(n-1) * 5^(n-2))/6^n

Hence, using these formulae:

Dice  P(3 only)  P(3+)

3D    0.0046     0.0046
4D    0.0154     0.0162
5D    0.0322     0.0355
6D    0.0536     0.0623
7D    0.0781     0.0958

*very* roughly, spectacular failure on 5D is equivalent to 1/36 
(double 6 on 2D), on 6D 2/26 (roll 11 on 2D) and on 7D 3/36 (roll 11+ 
on 2D).

Which sounds good to me...

Keep up the good work with KBv2.x


Nick
Nick Munn, University of Sheffield, Dept. of Information Studies

"Just because he is unhappy, it does not follow that he is in love."
(Horace Walpole, _The Castle of Otranto_)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 07:36:54 -0400
From: Douglas N Sinclair <sinclai@ecf.toronto.edu>
Subject: Atmospheric pressure

To figure out the atmospheric pressure as a function of height:

P = P0 * exp (-Z/H)

where H is the scale height (7 km on Earth) H=RT/Mg
	R is the universal gas constant
	T is the temperature
	M is the molecular weight of the gas
	g is the acceleration due to gravity

P is the pressure that you are looking for
P0 is the pressure at zero altitude (sea level)
Z is the altitude

I hope this helps.  It assumes that T, M and g are constant in the
atmosphere, so it won't work all the way up to space, but it tends
to be pretty good.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 14:00:27 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Missiles+Fighters

>I dont think it would be beyond the realm of traveller to build a small
>enougth neutrino guidnace system so it would fit on a missile.  It may be
>short range, but thats why its delivered by a fighter.
>
Actually if CT Robots is considered canon there could be neutrino sensors a
few kilos in mass but I'm not shure about range. The text says something
like "detects nearby powerplants". Come to think of it wasn't there
neutrino sensors for missiles in the Journal Missiles supplement?

However in my Traveller campaign neutrino sensors are pretty large and
requires a license to own as they would make tracking of SDB movements way
too easy if Joe Public Xho-spy could own one. The same goes for
massdetectors. May players had to come up with some ingenious reasons why
they need a mass detector as they actually will use it to search for
Ancient portals in gas giants. The portals give away large gravity waves
when something enters/exits them.

Me and Daniel had some ideas about large gravity wave detectors for
detecting incoming outgoing ships. Any ship coming in from hyperspace or
jumping would create a huge gravity wave detectable in an entire solar
system. You'd need several to get the location but then you'd know where
they exited/entered jumpspace. The problem is that at those ranges you'd
probably would have a hard time tracking them by other sensors so all you
know is that someone was at a specific location at a specific time.

This could be an excellent handwave for why space fleets cannot pass each
other by in a system despite there being so many refuelling options in a
solar system. Due to comsinc events such as suns crashing into one another,
large chunks of matter colliding with black holes et c in the Universe
there could be gravitywave storms sweeping through the systems at certain
time and if the source lay beyond Zhodani space they'd know about it before
the Imperials and time their injumps to the oncoming of the wavefront.

Bad idea, cool idea or what?


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 14:32:13 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Mathmo in the house?

Why should spectacular successes and failures be related to task difficulty
but not to skill level? Is there a reason behind such rulings or is it
simply leftover from older equally flawed task systems?


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 09:39:00 -0400
From: Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org>
Subject: [none]

<QUOTE MODE ON>

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 17:33:00 -0700
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: Fighters: Stack them Compensators!
Compensators can be stacked!

Want 9G compensation at TL-12? Simple. Multiply 3G compensator volume by
3. Envelop pilot's area (2 cu. m or so). Pay through the nose. Remember:
The structure must be designed to handle the desired G's.

According to CSC:

    Comp. Vol. = ( Desired G Comp. / Max. G Comp ) ^ 3 * Std. Vol.

Granted, the vehicle design rules were not designed to be compatible
with QSDS or SSDS.

But if Traveller Technology allows it, then it can be done, dang-nab it.

<QUOTE MODE OFF>

REALY?!?!?!

If this is truly legal, and I can find a way to do it using my combo 
system(Q/SSDS/VDS),
I could have ships flying at LUDICROUS SPEED!

Imagine a ship which is already pulling 6g's with T-plates suddenly kick in 
the 6g HePlaR afterburner....

"They've gone PLAID!"

And the pilot, passengers and crew feel nothing because of stacked G-comps. 
 No need for the wall spatula, no muss no fuss!

This has been The Commander
Who is toiling reletlessly with these danged ones and zeros,
Trying to tell them what they can go do with themselves!
(It's a living...)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 07:50:48 -0500
From: Paul Walker <tiger@goldinc.com>
Subject: Re: What to Call M:0 RICE/BARD Papers?

>Carlos' efforts on the Geonee are inspiring me to do some work on my
>favorite underdeveloped variant of humaniti, the Suerrat.  But thoughts
>on their astrography and position leads to the question...
>
>The TML already sees RICE (Regency Institute for Cultural Exchange) and
>BARD (Bureau of Aggregate Reference Data) Papers for worlds in the TNE
>milieu.  But what should we call such things written from a T4, Milieu:0
>vantage point?
>
>ZIPP?  (Zhunastu Industries Planetary Profile)
>ICCI?  (Imperial Contact and Cultural Information)
>SARI?  (Sylean Astrographic Research Initiative)
>
>Your suggestions, serious and tongue-in-cheek both, would be appreciated.


Well, when I came up with the entire BARD concept, I meant it to be a TNS
for the RefCol.  I guess in one way, the TNS would be responsible for the
info, and in another the IISS would be.  For a planetary write-up, I'd use...

TNS-PIP (IISS-PIP)

for  TNS Planetary Information Profile

or something liek that. :)


Just a thought.

    Paul {tiger}
     tiger@goldinc.com
     http://www.goldinc.com/~tiger

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 06:26:17 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Ultimate T4 Task System

			KBv2.0:  The Ultimate T4 Task System

			designed by Kenneth D. Bearden



I might be being a little bold here, but I've spent months working on 
this task system.  I've gotta say that I'm quite proud of it, and as 
of tonight, the KBv2.0 task system is complete.

There's a lot of information here, but don't let that skew your 
opinion of KBv2.0.  It is a very simple system.  I've written a lot 
here in an effort to be complete.  Give the whole system a 
read-through, and you'll see what I mean when I say that this system 
is as simple as the official T4 systems but it doesn't have the 
problems associated with those systems.

Here's what you have to do to start using KBv2.0

          1)  Change the difficulty codes
          2)  Change the way you calculate target numbers
          3)  Incorporate changes to SS/SF, multiple actions, Default 
               skill throws, and JOT skill throws.

It's as easy as that.

What will this task system do for you?

Here's ten promises that I will make:

1)  It will keep the flavour and general design philosophy of the 
official T4 task system (both of them--the original T4 system in Book 
1 and Marc's new fix).  In other words, KBv2.0 is designed 
mechanically like the T4 systems (simple and functional)  but cures 
all the ills of both the T4 systems.  

2)  It will allow you to only use whole dice.  This means that the 
awkward D3s used in both Marc's and Book 1's T4 task systems are a 
thing of the past.

3)  It will place a greater emphasis on skills so that your Pilot-4, 
Dex-6 character will be able to capitalize on his greater skill level 
when pitted against the Pilot-1 but Dex-10 rookie.  Both the Book 1 
system and Marc's new variant do not have this capability.

4)  It will ensure that this greater emphasis that is put on skills 
will not overpower the effect that natural ability has on a task 
roll.  This means that having a high stat is still a very, very good 
thing.

5)  It will deliver relevant probabilities of success based on a 
character's skills and attributes.  What this means is that certain 
difficulty categories won't get out of hand like the Staggering and 
Impossible categories did in the Book 1 version of the T4 task 
system.

6)  Spectacular Success will be possible at every difficulty level.  
The chance of SS will be based on a character's skill, and 
characters with higher skill levels will have an increased chance of 
SS than characters with skill levels lower than theirs.  Also the 
chance that SS will be obtained will decrease the harder a task 
becomes.

Although the Book 1 T4 SS system also decreases the chance of SS with 
each increase in difficulty and provides for SS at every difficulty 
level, that system has no provision for higher skilled characters 
receiving a better chance of obtaining SS.

Marc's T4 task fix only allows SS on Difficult and higher difficulty 
categories, and the percentage that SS is rolled actually goes up 
with higher task difficulties.  That system also has no provision for 
increased SS percentage based on a character's skill level.

7)  Spectacular Failure will be rolled just like Marc Miller's system 
(which is a logical extension of the SF system used in Book 1), but 
SF in KBv2.0 can occur at any difficulty category except Easy.

In Marc's system, SF can only occur in Formidable and higher 
categories--leaving no chance for SF in Average and Difficult throws.

8)  There will be no awkward math used that will slow down game play. 
 Like the attribute + skill system used in both Marc's and Book 1's 
task systems, KBv2.0 will only require simple addition of two numbers 
to arrive at target numbers during game play.  This allows for quick 
calculation after a character has been wounded and had his stat 
reduced.

9)  It will require little or no conversion for published T4 
products, and it is fully compatible with all T4 rules, game 
mechanics, and design systems.  This is a variant task system, but it 
replaces the two old task systems with a minimum of fuss--you won't 
have to spend hours on each adventure and supplement converting 
things to a new way of rolling tasks.

10)  It is the best Traveller task system available for T4.


=================================================================
And now, on to the task system.  All official rules are included 
below.  Using KBv2.0 involves 7 easy steps.
=================================================================


STEP 1:  Change the Difficulty Codes.......

DIFFICULTY CODES

KBv2.0 uses these difficulty codes.  Simply change these on page 50 
of Book 1 and on your T4 GM Screen.

Task Difficulties

Rating                              Dice Code
- --------                             -------------
Easy                                Auto/2D*
Average                          3D
Difficult                            4D
Formidable                       5D
Staggering                       6D
Impossible                        7D

*It is suggested that Easy tasks are rolled, especially if the task 
roll includes use of a Default skill.  At the GM's option, Easy task 
rolls can be considered automatic successes.



STEP 2:  Change Target Number Calculation.......

TARGET NUMBERS

Both the T4 systems (Marc's and the original one in Book 1) add 
attribute + skill to arrive at a target number.  What this does is 
make attributes much more important than skills in the game.

Take, for example, a character with Pilot-4 (an expert pilot) and a 
Dex-6 (a respectable stat--about average).  His target number would 
be 10.  Now compare this to another character with Pilot-1 (a 
definite beginner) and Dex-10 (some definite natural ability).  This 
second character would have a target number of 11 affording him a 
better chance of success at piloting than the expert.  What this type 
of target number calculation is saying is that the second character's 
natural ability is so great that, even though he just learned to fly, 
his natural instincts and ability make him a better pilot than the 
expert with only average natural ability.

The KBv2.0 system fixes this inequity by increasing the value of a 
character's skill with regard to the target number.

EXPERIENCE SCORE

The first step in using KBv2.0 target numbers is to calculate a 
character's experience score.  To do this, simply multiply the skill 
levels for each of a character's skills by 3.  

Experience Score = Skill Level x 3

Record each experience score next to each of a character's skills on 
his sheet.  It is suggested that this information be recorded in 
parentheses next to the skill's governing attribute.

In game play, you will add the character's experience score to his 
governing attribute to arrive at the target number for the task 
throw.  Instead of just adding attribute + skill, like in the two 
official T4 systems, you add attribute + experience to find the 
character's target number.

Target Number = Attribute + Experience

A character's experience score will never change except when his 
skill level is improved.  When this happens, simply record the new 
experience score for that skill.

On the other hand, a character's attribute may be adjusted due to 
combat wounds or some other factor during game play.  This will alter 
the character's target number--just like in both the other T4 task 
systems.



Step 1 and 2 are the basis for KBv2.0.  If you've read this far, then 
you already know the system.  The following steps change some of the 
aspects and game mechanics associated with the T4 task system.

For general information, here is a list of all possible target 
numbers and their chance of success within each difficulty.  These 
numbers have been rounded, so you may see 100% listed more than 
once.  This chart is provided for GMs and players to aid in 
gauging task probability.  Keep in mind that these numbers are not 
adjusted for either SF or SS.  For instance, an 18 rolled on an 
Average throw would result in a SF, even though the table says it is 
a 100% chance of success, but 18 rolled on 3 dice can only occur 
with 3 sixes (which indicates a SF).  

TN  Easy   Avg    Diff      Form   Stag   Imp

1    --         --        --         --         --        --

2    2.78     --        --         --         --        --
3    8.33     0.46    --         --         --        --
4    16.67   1.85    0.08     --         --        --

5    27.78   4.63    0.39     0.01     --        --
6    41.67   9.26    1.16     0.08     0.00    --
7    58.33   16.2    2.7       0.27     0.02    0.00

8    72.22   25.93  5.4       0.72     0.06    0.00
9    83.33   37.5    9.72     1.62     0.18    0.01
10  91.67   50       15.9     3.24     0.45    0.04

11  97.22   62.5    23.92   5.88     0.99    0.12
12  100      74.07  33.57   9.8       1.97    0.28
13              83.8    44.37   15.2     3.59    0.61

14              90.74  55.63   22.15   6.08    1.2
15              95.37  66.44   30.52   9.65    2.2
16              98.15  76.08   39.97   14.46  3.79

17              99.54  84.1     50        20.59  6.12
18              100     90.28   60.03   27.94  9.39
19                         94.6     69.48   36.31  13.72

20                         97.3     77.86   45.36  19.17
21                         98.84   84.8     54.64  25.72
22                         99.61   90.2     63.69  33.22

23                         99.92   94.12   72.01  41.42
24                         100      96.76   79.42  50
25                                     98.38   85.54  58.58

26                                     99.28   90.35  66.78
27                                     99.73   93.92  74.28
28                                     99.92   96.41  80.83

29                                     99.99   98.03  86.28
30                                     100      99.01  90.61
31                                                 99.55  93.88

32                                                 99.82  96.21
33                                                 99.94  97.79
34                                                 99.99  98.79

35                                                 100     99.39
36                                                 100     99.72
37                                                            99.88

38                                                            99.96
39                                                            99.99
40                                                            100

41                                                            100
42                                                            100



STEP 3:  Change the rule for Spectacular Failure.......

SPECTACULAR FAILURE

Any time 3 sixes are rolled for a task, a spectacular failure has 
occurred.  SF is not possible on Easy task rolls, but can occur on 
any of the other difficulty levels.

SF = Any time 3 sixes are rolled

For completeness, here's a table which lists the probability that SF 
will occur given the difficulty of the task.

Probability of SF

Difficulty                    SF%
- --------------------------------
Easy                          0.00
Average                    0.46
Difficult                      1.54
Formidable                 3.22
Staggering                 5.36
Impossible                  7.81



STEP 4:  Change the rule for Spectacular Success.......

SPECTACULAR SUCCESS

Spectacular success is gauged by a character's skill in the 
appropriate area.  A SS occurs if the SS target number, or less, is 
thrown.

SS Target Number = Skill Level + Difficulty Dice Code

SS can occur in any difficulty level or when Default skills are 
being used.  Since Default skills have a level of 0, the SS target 
number for these throws is just the difficulty dice code (which is 
equivalent to rolling all ones on the task throw).  The percentage of 
this happening is so low that it will almost never happen, but this 
does leave that one in a million chance that a character will blunder 
into a SS.

Here's a couple of tables to put SS into perspective.  The first 
states the percentage chances that a SS will be rolled if a Default 
skill is being used.  The second, since SS is dependent on a 
character's skill level, will state the chance an average character 
(defined as Skill-2, Stat-7) will have at achieving SS for each 
particular difficulty level.

Probability of SS with a Default skill

Difficulty                   SS%
- -------------------------------
Easy                         2.78
Average                   0.46
Difficult                     0.08
Formidable                0.01
Staggering                0.00*
Impossible                 0.00*

*The percentage chance is actually greater than 0, but due to 
rounding, the percentage could not be expressed in less than three 
digits.



Probability of SS for an average character
(average character defined as Skill-2, Stat-7)

Difficulty                    SS%          SS TN
- ------------------------------------------------
Easy                          16.67         4
Average                    4.63           5
Difficult                      1.16           6
Formidable                 0.27           7
Staggering                 0.06           8
Impossible                  0.01           9



Now that we know how to roll a task and gauge SS/SF, let's look at an 
example that explains each of the topics above.

TASK ROLL EXAMPLE

Joe Average makes a Difficult throw--he throws 4 D6.  He's got 
Skill-2 and Stat-7, so his target number is 13.  If the result of the 
throw is 13 or below, Joe succeeds.  If the roll is 14 or above, Joe 
fails.  If 3 sixes are rolled on any of the 4 dice (or even 4 sixes), 
then Joe has just thrown a spectacular failure.  Since Joe's SS 
target number is 6 (skill + dice code), he will achieve spectacular 
success if the result of the throw is 6 or less.

And that's it--one dice throw, four different outcomes.



STEP 5:  Change the Multiple Action rule.......

MULTIPLE ACTIONS

On page 58 of Book 1, there is a rule for multiple actions during the 
combat round that must be changed for KBv2.0.  Actually, the KBv2.0 
rule is more simple than the original rule published in Book 1.

When a character attempts to conduct multiple actions in a round, 
calculate the target number normally, but divide the target number by 
the number of actions attempted during the round.

Multiple Action Rule = Divide TN by number of actions attempted

So, if a player wants his character to fire his weapon three 
times in a combat round, simply calculate the TN normally then divide 
it by 3 to arrive at the new TN used for all three shots.

If the character is attempting multiple actions that are not the 
same, then use the lowest TN from the actions being attempted, 
and divide from there.  It is advised that the GM keep a handle on 
this to ensure that characters don't attempt multiple actions that 
would take them more than 6 seconds to accomplish.  

Optional Rule/Recommendation--
The action point rules in CT's Snapshot or Azhanti High Lightning 
could be used to figure how many actions a character is physically 
able to attempt in a single combat round.  This could be used to 
combat abuse of the multiple action rule.



STEP 6:  Change the Default task throw rule.......

DEFAULT SKILL THROWS

On page 49 of Book 1 it states that the attribute must be halved 
before calculating the target number for a task throw using a 
Default skill.  This is not necessary in KBv2.0.  Simply use the full 
characteristic as the target number (the skill level, of course, is 0 
and does not contribute to the target number in this instance).



STEP 7:  Change the Jack of All Trades rule.......

JOT RULE

On page 44 of Book 1, it states that, when using JOT skill, the 
character must halve his attribute before calculating the target 
number.  This is not necessary in KBv2.0.

To use JOT skill with KBv2.0, simply add the JOT skill level to the 
attribute, and use that as the target number.  

JOT TN = JOT Skill + Attribute

Notice that JOT receives a penalty because the skill level is not 
multiplied by 3, yet the skill will provide a benefit over a Default 
skill.



And, that is it--the whole task system in 7 steps.

Should you stumble upon any problems with KBv2.0, or if you have any 
comments, then please e-mail me at dreamer@brokersys.com.

I am glad to answer any questions you might have.  

I like to hear both criticism and praise.

Sincerely,

Kenneth D. Bearden

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 08:21:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Peter  H. Brenton" <pete@cummings.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Jamming IR Sensors(was Re: AWACS Starship)

On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Leonard Erickson wrote:

> In mail you write:
> 
> >> In mail you write:
> >> 
[snip]
> >> > up it's active sensors....then _everything_ will see it, unless
> >> > you're also positing that (like our AWACS aircraft) they also have
> >> > significant jamming capability.
> >> 
> >> Trouble is, you *can't* "jam" IR. Well you can put out "flares", but
> >> sensors can easily ignore ones that aren't radiating at the "right"
> >> wavelengths/intensities.
> >>
> > No you don't "Jam"  IR, you "Mask" it.  At least that is what we do 
> > at TL8.
> 
> But that's the point. You *can't* mask it. Not in space. The background
> is dead "black". The ship is glowing "white". And any "mask" *near* the
> ship will absorb the heat it is supposed to be blocking, which then
> makes *it* start glowing.

Ok, wait.  This is *science fiction*.  If you can't think of a few
different ways to block, confuse, or otherwise "jam" IR sensors go play
Harpoon instead.  Likewise if you cannot possibly imagine that there is
some method which you can't think up which might not violate the laws of
physics, you need an imagination boost...go to disneyworld.

To prevent an IR sensor from operating properly I can think of three
strategies;  Deception, Concealment, and Overload.

Deception is like TL8 IR flares.  When jamming IR sensors a drone or three
are launched which radiate in the same spectrum as the launching vessel.

Concealment is harder, but if all heat energy in the direction
of the detecting ship is eliminated, that still leaves the directions
*away* from the detecting ship for radiating heat.  With no medium
around the emitting ship, only the IR radiation in the exact
direction of the detecting ship can be picked up.  In addition,
total elimination (an unlikely prospect) is probably not needed since even
a really good IR sensor will have a minimum threshhold which decreases as
an inverse square of the distance, or something like that.         

Problem with that strategy is that the jamming ship needs to know at least
vaguely what direction the detecting ship lies in.  I already assume that
the target ship knows someone is "out there" since otherwise why would
they be jamming?

The target ship could also use some sort of heat absoring material (like
chillcans in battle dress) to avert emmissions for a time.  I would think
this requires a lot of space, and you don't want to keep all that heat in
for long.

Overload is definitely harder to accomplish.  You could aim an IR burning
laser in the direction of the detecting ship, but if you could do that why
not use a real laser?  Radiating all your heat in the direction of the
sensor would probably just make you easier to detect, since the amount of
energy you'd need to radiate would be more than what's available...but
then again maybe there's something Idon't know about high tech IR sensors.
Maybe to be sensitive enough to pick up one little starship against the
backdrop of all the stars in the night sky the sensor needs to be really
sensitive; so sensitive it can be jammed with a bit of extra IR in
about the right direction, or maybe there's a way to "refract" or "fuzz"
the return so that the precise location of the IR source is impossible to
determine.

I think the sensors in Traveller (I'm thinking MT here) are purposefully
vaguely described because 1) the designers realized that not everyone is
the tech head that we are and 2) that way you can come up wiith your own
rationale.  Any theoretical development can be filled with holes.  The
idea is to find one where the holes are relatively pluggable.

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1169
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest      Thursday, April 10 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1170



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Fighters: Stack them Compensators!
Re: Excellent SSDS Spreadsheet
Traveller Chat
Re: AWACS Starship
My Vegan illustration
RICE/BARD papers in M:0
Re: TL & Darrians
Re: Fighters revisted
Re: Low-tech space fighters
Re: Sylea --> Capitol
Re: Missiles+fighters II
Re: Fighters and sensors
Ship design Contract competition
Re: Teleporting in floorfields
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Vemene 
SS and SF by KB
Question- IR sigs for small craft.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 09:30:44 -0400
From: "Chris Cox" <chriscox@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Fighters: Stack them Compensators!

Glenn Hoppe
> That said, I just discovered something that seemingly hasn't come up yet
> regarding the acceleration advantage of fighters. Sure, Leonard has
> pointed out that fighters will have a greater G capability due to the
> single pilot etc etc etc.
> 
> But having recently gotten my grubby fingers on a copy of CSC, I have
> discovered something embedded in the Vehicle Design Rules:
> 
> Compensators can be stacked!

Stacking compensators is an OPTIONAL rule.  Being an optional rule I don't
think that it should be used when design ships or vehicles for the common
Traveller Universe.  Very much like FF&S gave us Alternate Technologies.  Of
course if you do use the stacking rule I don't see any reason you can't use
them on Space Battleships.  I mean, it should be just as easy to install
stacked compensator for the crew positions on a Space Battleship as it is for
a Space Fighter.

Chris Cox
(chriscox@ix.netcom.com)
The Draconis Cluster Traveller pages
(http://users.aol.com/yanbeck/trav.htm)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 08:43:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Peter  H. Brenton" <pete@cummings.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Excellent SSDS Spreadsheet

[My previous post snipped]

Apologies,  I can't believe how many times I used the wrong spelling of
the word "brake".

Pete

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 07:18:09 +0000
From: "Suzette C. Dollar" <suzd@pop.goodnet.com>
Subject: Traveller Chat

Greetings!

The Imperium Games Server is back up! 

Tim Reynold's will be leading a discussion of Adventures tonight.  I 
believe we will beginning at 8pm EST.

The server address is www.imperiumgames.com, ports 6665 & 6666.

Suz

Suzette C. Dollar
#traveller Channel Manager
suzd@goodnet.com

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 17:38:50 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: AWACS Starship

Leonard Erickson writes:
>>No you don't "Jam"  IR, you "Mask" it.  At least that is what we do 
>>at TL8.
> 
>But that's the point. You *can't* mask it. Not in space. The background
>is dead "black". The ship is glowing "white". And any "mask" *near* the
>ship will absorb the heat it is supposed to be blocking, which then
>makes *it* start glowing.
> 
>Space is a bitch because you don't *have* heat sinks!
> 
>>Just because the limited ship combat systems for traveller don't 
>> address it doesn't mean that there wouldn't be ECM and ECCM to help 
>>ships avoid detection at higher tech levels.
> 
>Only if you repeal a bunch of the laws of physics.

Leonard, you're making (what I think is) a big mistake here. You're taking
it for granted that the Traveller Universe works the same way the real 
universe works. Let me let you in on a secret. It dosen't. Just to give
you an example, detection ranges dosen't match. You're doing things
exactly backwards. You're trying to make a game be as realistic as 
possible and damn the playability. A game should be as playable as 
possible and... well, no, not damn the realism, because in a role-playing
game realism is quite important. Just not as important as playability.
But what makes a game universe "realistic" isn't realism, it's consistency.
That's where realism has an edge, because if you keep things realistic
you get consistency thrown in for free. And that's usually a good thing,
but not always. Not when the realism impairs the playability.

Instead of saying that this or that game rule is unrealistic you should
first decide whether it is a good rule (and I have to weasel a bit here,
because I haven't worked much with space combat, so I don't know if the
detection rules in Traveller are good or not (heck, I don't even know
exactly _what_ the rules are in T4); however for purposes of this argument
I'm going to assume that they work fine in a game context. If that is the
case, then what you need to do is to make up some new laws of physics that
makes them possible.

Here's one possiblilty: You say that there are no heat sinks in space. How
do you know? In Traveller you have at least 36 parrallel dimensions (the
36 jump-spaces) and quite possibly more. Perhaps a "sub-space" that
thurusters "thrust" against. Or define a subspace that has no other
practical function than being a heat sink for ships that want to hide in
empty space.

Or why NOT repeal the laws of physics in certain carefully defined
circumstances? Create a "stealth field", if you like. The real universe
isn't going to mind. 

The problem is to make sure your new laws dosen't have undesired 
ramifications. Take the heat sink idea, for example. Postulate the
availability of a heat sink inside a starship and no other changes in
the laws of physics. Would that allow other, undesirable, effects?
(Like drawing power out of thin air).

(You know, if such a heat sink was an expensive dingus it would be a
perfect solution to the civilian vs. military ship cost problem).



      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, 10 Apr 1997 09:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>
Subject: My Vegan illustration

I guess Harold Hale has also made one of these available, but here's a link
to an optimized GIF version of my Vegan illustration at my web page:

http://www.cris.com/~Cgriffen/traveller/images/Vegans.gif

I highly recommend using the canonical version of the Vegans. They're a
fascinating race that I believe has never gotten its due in Traveller. For
additional information on the Vegans, refer to:

Arrival Vengeance
Library Data N-Z
Traveller Chronicle 10-11
The Children of Earth Web Page (http://dopey.siscom.net/~hdhale/COE.htm)

Best,

Chris Griffen

===================================================
Keeper of the Flame. Traveller player since 1980.

http://www.cris.com/~Cgriffen/traveller/deneb.html


- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Griffen                                        Phone: (408)
527-7189
Cisco Systems, Inc.                                        Fax:   (408)
527-0452
Knowledge Products
cgriffen@cisco.com

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 08:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>
Subject: RICE/BARD papers in M:0

Joseph "Chepe" Lockett wrote:

>Carlos' efforts on the Geonee are inspiring me to do some work on my
>favorite underdeveloped variant of humaniti, the Suerrat.  But thoughts
>on their astrography and position leads to the question...
>
>The TML already sees RICE (Regency Institute for Cultural Exchange) and
>BARD (Bureau of Aggregate Reference Data) Papers for worlds in the TNE
>milieu.  But what should we call such things written from a T4, Milieu:0
>vantage point?
>
>ZIPP?  (Zhunastu Industries Planetary Profile)
>ICCI?  (Imperial Contact and Cultural Information)
>SARI?  (Sylean Astrographic Research Initiative)
>
>Your suggestions, serious and tongue-in-cheek both, would be appreciated.


My vote is for ICCI. I think it's the most appropriate.


Best,

Chris Griffen

===================================================
Keeper of the Flame. Traveller player since 1980.

http://www.cris.com/~Cgriffen/traveller/deneb.html


- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Griffen                                        Phone: (408)
527-7189
Cisco Systems, Inc.                                        Fax:   (408)
527-0452
Knowledge Products
cgriffen@cisco.com

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 18:00:00 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: TL & Darrians

Leonard Erickson writes:
>Surgery was discovered at about TL0. Things like trephination existed.

You know that and I know that, but _Referee's Companion_ put surgery at
(IIRC) TL 4. 

>The trick is, flint tools are essentially sterile if you use them right
>after they are chipped (which is what you'd do because you want your
>*sharpest* tools for something important). And hunter/gatherer
>populations have very little disease running around loose. So your
>chances of survival of even something this extreme is pretty good.
> 
>Once you get settled populations, there are more people to harbor
>disease, and add in metal tools, and things rapidly get worse.

But my point is that once you know about the desirability of sterile
procedures you don't need to depend on the serendipituos sterility of
freshly sharpened flint knife. You can implement it your very own
self at a much lower TL than you need to _discover_ germs.
> 
>Easy. I can speak from experience here. The university *won't have* all
>the info. Most *technology* (as opposed to science) tends to involve
>trade secrets. For example, any chemistry class will tell you the
>melting point of silicon. And if you go to work for a company that
>produces hyperpure silicon for semiconductor use, and work in the right
>department, you'll learn that the figure in the books is *wrong*. The
>correct figure is a trade secret!
> 
>The university will have the *principles* things are based on, but the
>details of making them work is another matter. 

But if you know the principles you can work out the details. The Darrians
had the principles and they had 13 centuries to work out the details 
(assuming they began when Mire reached TL 9) and they still didn't have 
them in 1100. To me that is a lot more incredible than stealth fields.

No, if they don't have the details in 1100 then it's because they lost
the principles too.

>They also had more immediate problems, like trying to *survive* with
>the high tech gone. Hit all of earth with a good mag pulse *now* and
>we'd lose most cities because there'd be no way to feed them. And the
>farmers couldn't harvest or transport food without tractors and trucks.

The problem isn't that they lost their technology. That's plausible
enough. The problem is that they lost their knowledge although one huge
repository of knowledge survived _intact_.

>Like I said, the trick is that universities *don't* contain state of
>the art tech knowledge.

I belive that the principles alone would be enough to let people rediscover
the details, especially in about twice the time it took them to discover both 
principles and details in the first place. If you don't think so then we'll 
just have to agree to disagree.



      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, 10 Apr 1997 06:49:24 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Fighters revisted

In mail you write:

> Assuming the Imperium shuns
> such advances already on the horizon on TL 8 Earth, there is always
> another solution: crew your fighters with two people instead of one or
> three instead of two.

Like the Cylon fighters used crews of three?

To quote from the only *decent* Episode of Galactica 1980:

"We were taking a vote on what to do when the planet came up and hit us."

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 07:26:01 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Low-tech space fighters

<interesting post snipped>

This reminds me of a "low tech vs high tech" idea I had the other day.
I'd just finished re-reading Footfall (Niven & Pournelle), and I got to
thinking that similar confrontations had to happen *sometime during the
Long Night or the early spread of the Imperium. 

And I got to wondering if it'd be possible to design the Micheal using
Trav rules. That would shock some players.... Nuclear putt-putt
propulsion, gamma ray lasers, 15 inch naval cannon, and anything else a
TL8/TL/9 civilization could scrape together.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 06:57:22 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Sylea --> Capitol

In mail you write:

> I always wondered about this, too.
> Additional, i found a reference in old MT lib-data as to Capital 
> being in hex 0508. Checking M:0 i find that hex empty! Anyone???????

I'm starting a database of Traveller "geography", sectors, subsectors,
stars, planets...

Anyway, I just finished entering what I could find in Alien Module 1
(Aslan). On page 2 Kusyu is listed as 0408, on page 35 it's listed as
0305 in one paragraph, and 0309 in the next! For what it's worth, Atlas
of the Imperium shows 0309. :-)

So never trust data that you haven't cross checked. :-)

ps, for anyone who cares, I put all three locations in the database.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 12:17:55 -0400
From: russcm@zoomnet.net (Christopher M. Russell)
Subject: Re: Missiles+fighters II

>  Another modification would be that a missile would have no
>fuel or engine.  The fighter zooms in and "drops" the missile, the missile
>would continue to travel at the speed and vector of its initial drop and
>hit the capital ship.  Taking away fuel/engine from the missile would
>leave more room for explosives.
>
Something to notice, the missile doesn't actually need to expend fuel until
the terminal phase of the flight. It only needs the fuel to correct for aim
and to get a final burst of speed near the end of the flight.

Initially, the missile would have the heading and velocity of the launching
platform, much like a tossed bomb. NOTE this will work only on a platform
capable of high speed runs, so not likely any capital ships using this tactic.
If an initial burst of speed is needed (like for launching from a capital
ship), a first stage or a short fuel burn can be included to give that
boost, adding to the initial velocity.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 05:53:17 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Fighters and sensors

In mail you write:

>>Someone was saying that fighters mount less capable sensors, but couldn't 
>>they errrrmm, multiplex I thinks the word. You know like that very long 
>>baseline array telescope that NASA use made up of many small telescopes, 
>
> NASA doesn't actually have an array like this right now. (JPL does,
> but I'm not sure that counts.) A few other groups do...all on the ground,
> where you can physically connect the telescopes. For this to work you need
> to know the distance between the spacecraft to within a fraction of a
> wavelength of light, which is hard to do for spacecraft that are
> trying to fight.

Make that a fraction of the wavelength the sensor array senses. And if
you lik the fighters with tight beam lasercomm, the cesium clock module
(or equivalent) on the fighters will let the computers do the rest.

I figure that be TL 12 you ought to be able to afford that kind of
timing accuracy for lots of things where it'd be useful.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 07:10:15 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Ship design Contract competition

The Scout service has taken notice of the THUDD competetion for
fighters, and wishes request that designers consider a multi-role ship
design. 

The ISS will be willing to perchase a number of medium to long range
high acceleration ships that carry only a pilot or a pilot and one
passenger and a small cargo (life support and medical supplies).

The intent is to use these as a first response in the case of ships
having major accidents. The fast response craft would arrive first and
supply life support or medical aid as needed while slower vessels are
still one the way.
********************

I got to thinking and realized that there are jobs for a small, fast
ship *besides* scouting and shooting holes in things. Think of these as
being something like the "motor lifeboats" that the US Coast Guard
uses. You can base them places you can't base a larger ship, they are
cheap enough that you can have a lot more of them, and they can be
there giving aid while larger ships are still running down checklists. 

So, I'd like the THUDD designers to consider a "search and rescue"
variant of their designs as part of the competition. If the THUDD folks
aren't willing, then how about someone designing one anyway?

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 06:00:17 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Teleporting in floorfields

In mail you write:

> Conservation of energy (a big issue according to canon) while jumping from
> one floorfield to another. What is your potential energy while in a
> floorfield? I've had a teleoprting PC die because he teleported from within
> a floorfield way back when that issue seemed important. Now I don't have PC
> with psionics so it is still a problem. Any ideas on how to solve this?

Well, the potential energy depends on more than *just* the acceleration
provided by the field. In a normal gravity field, potential energy is
escape velocity * mass. And as you can see with some simple
calculations, you can get wildly different values for different density
spheres.

If I could find the formula for the gravity at the center of a flat
disk, I'd be able to give a better answer, but I'd say that the
potential energy is equivalent to the velocity you'd get falling from
the ceiling to the floor (since the field is apparently confined to the
*inside* of the ship). 

And if you are jumping from one ship to another, you only need to worry
about the difference in field settings. Jumping from a ship to a
*planet* is another matter. Ditto for the reverse. Jumping to the
planet, the result should be the same as if the guy *fell* from that
height. (Ouch!) Jumping *from* the planet would require more energy
than the guy has.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 06:21:34 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

In mail you write:

> Are there such things as mainframes anymore? What do they do? I think
> that mainframes will always have a place. Besides, as the Imperium
> expands, the frontier areas won't have the state of the art technology.
> So you'll find mainframes in remote areas. You'll also see them in
> workplaces requiring high levels of security.

Mainframes don't necessarily give any better security than networking a
bunch of smaller systems and restricting what you are allowed to see on
other systems.

I agree that mainframes will always be there. Mainframes differ from
minis and micros not in speed, but in raw storage, and in I/O capacity.

Rough rule of thumb right now: Micros have as much RAM/diskspace as
minis did 5 years ago or mainframes ten years ago. 

So in Traveller terms, I'd have storage & RAM be 1 TL *ahead* for
mainframes, and one *behind* for micros. The computers on ships are
basicly minis.

I/O is a different matter. That doesn't really change. Micros are "few"
users, usually 1-10, with 100 being unusual. Minis are 100 is normal,
10,000 is unusual. Mainframes are anything up from there. There are
*current* systems (such as some of the credit card approval systems),
that are handling hundreds of thousands of transactions. 

Mainframes also tend to go for the huge data crunching stuff. For
example, the IRS has a batch job that takes 3 *weeks*. It's processing
amounts of data that boggle the mind. It's written in *optimized
assembler* just to get the run time down that far. And you don't even
want to *think* about the data storage it needs.

Imagine what the Imperial tax people have to crunch through!

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 09:27:15 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, David J. Golden wrote:

Snippage about 3G3...

> 	Again, not directly related, but useable. I haven't decided whether I like
> it yet, but I'm rather persnickety. Greg seems very thorough. The biggest
> issue I've seen, browsing through it, is that no matter how big a weapon
> gets, his T4 conversion produces a damage of 3D. Period.

Well, not exactly. My design for a 20mm single shot sniper rifle does 8D
of damage...;-) But you are right, reasonable handheld weapons do 2 or 3D
of damage. This is, I think, due far more to the coarseness of the T4
damage scale than anything else.


Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 97 12:22:19 -0400
From: Lewis Roberts <lewis@chara.gsu.edu>
Subject: Vemene 

Hi,
I wrote up this history of the Vemene in the New Era. The gist of the
write up is that one group of Vemene gets stranded and turns into a
criminal organization on Oriflamme. 

For those of you in Year Zero you could easily change this into Miliue
0, by just changing the names around and making the Vemene come from a
pocket empire.

For those in year 1200, but not in the RC, you could just change the
planet which the Vemene gets stranded on.

So tell me what you think, Did I forget any canon, Is this specific
enough, or is it too vague?
Lewis


Vemene
    After the Solomani annexed the majority of the Old Expanses, Margaret
decided that she needed information on Solomani moves in the sector.  The
Vemene, the intelligence service of Tukera Lines which Margaret used as
her main intelligence source, dispatched teams to strategic worlds. 
These included high population worlds and those with important military or
industrial installations.  Nemyer (the future Oriflamme) was one of
these, both for its population and the Xboat Way station in the outer 
system.  									  
    By 1121 the team was in place, they managed to infiltrate the
Scout base and over time they discovered many important secrets. As
Hard Times set in and as Margret's forces withdrew in to her shrinking
safe area funds for intelligence operations started to dry up.  The
Vemene team were forced to create some of their own operating funds.
They had previous contacts with the underworld, they decided to expand
these contacts.  They slowly moved into the criminal arena, selling
the occasional bit of information to the mob.  After a while they had
learned enough about the structure of the underworld, they allied 
themselves with one criminal group and launched a hostile takeover against
another group.  This takeover was much more subtle than the usual 
mob war. The Vemene assassinated key figures and framed others for the
deeds, informed on their enemies to the police, blackmailed political
figures to put pressure on their enemies and other techniques.  After a
year or two of this, they had managed to control one of the top three
criminal organizations in the capital, of Weinburg.  They figured that
these criminal acts served two purposes, one they earned money to fund
their intelligence gathering operations, and whatever harm was being
done to people, was being done to the Solomani.  
    When the criminal activity first started it was only a small part
of their total operation, as time went on it grew in importance.
By 1132 the Vemene controlled one of the top criminal organizations on
the planet.  Their group was involved with extortion, drugs, 
murder for hire, and they took a cut off every criminal act
that took place in the territory the controlled.  Their 
intelligence gathering had suffered; several of their agents 
had been arrested or killed because of their criminal
actions, but the members were richer than they had ever been. 
With the Rim Concordant signed between Magaret and the Solomani, there
was less of a demand for intelligence.
    When Virus hit Nemyer in 1133, the planet's robotic agriculture
were destroyed.  The Vemene took advantage of the chaos by seizing 
farms and selling what little produce there was at inflated prices.
It wasn't only luck that allowed the Vemene to survive while most of
their competitors died in the chaos.  If they weren't killed directly,
their organizations were disrupted and the Vemene took advantage of
this and eliminated them.  
    In the refugee camps that existed after the Collapse, the Vemene
set up protection rackets and a blackmarket.  They also continued to
control several farms and food processing plants.  As life slowly
recovered they had even more power than they had ever had  before the collapse.
    By 1200 the Vemene is the largest criminal organization on Nemyer
which has now been renamed Oriflamme. It has several thousand thugs
under its control.  Its influence is felt in most feudal holdings.  Three
of the farms that they took control of during the Food Riots, have turned
into legitimate feudal holdings, in these holdings the Vemene are the 
government.  They are Holgren, Andropov and Kircheff Holdings. These
holdings are extremely small, the only thing making them noteworthy is
that they are run by the Vemene. They each contain about a quarter of a
million residents.  They are all still primarily agricultural holdings,
with large grain farms in the northern reaches of the planet. Holgren
Hold has expanded into the manufacture of high speed aircraft, and has
recently won a contract to build Oriflamme's new interface fighter
plane, the Tempest.  Andropov Hold owns one of the finest research labs
on the planet, often coming to a market with a new device, bare weeks
before competitor was due to come out with a similar product. 
Accusations that Andropov Labs engaged in industrial espionage, are met
with lawsuits and threats of war.  
    It is an open secret that these holdings were taken over by the
Vemene during the collapse. It is a secret that the Vemene still
control them, and use them for a base of operations.  Most people
believe that the Vemene were ousted in 1145 during the infamous Red
River fiasco, where the police arrested numerous organized figures. 
The Oriflamme Police suspect that the
holdings are still controlled by the Vemene, but haven't been able to
prove it.  The Holdings do wield political power, and are able to
influence the selection of two representatives to the Assembly of
Worlds.  The Androv and Kircheff holdings are in the same political
district and wield a slim majority and are able select their candidate
at will.  Currently their representative is Dame Monica Kold. She is
very aware of the true nature of the holdings and of the Vemene. 
Holgren Holding is a minority holding in its district and is only able
to veto offensive candidates.  
     In times of war they act as  an intelligence service much as they
did for Duchess Margaret.  When their holdings are not involved in the
war, they act as freelance agents. Spying, assassinating and sabatoging
for the highest bidder.  They even do some of this during peace time.  
    The Vemene's methods of operation betray their intelligence service
origin.  The organization is divided into many small cells.  Each cell
performs a set task, and then hands off the money or information to
another cell.  The cells have minimal contact with each other, they
often use message drops.  These cells are larger, than they would be in
a true intelligence organization, they average about 50 people. They
are kept isolated, information is only passed to those with a need to know.  
    The Vemene also try to use cutting edge  technology, in their
schemes.  They use the latest in wireless communications and the almost
all messages are sent in code.  The use of encryption techniques is
illegal on Oriflamme, so the Vemene are forced hide their coded
messages in legitimate messages. Not all messages are sent this way,
only the most incriminating sort.
    The Vemene engage in large scale industrial espionage, primarily they
steal secrets to further the interests of their holdings, but they will also 
take the occasional commission.  They have also created an arrangement
with the rulers of Kal, to base raiding operations out of its starport.
 They have also set up a secret auction where they sell recovered
technology.  This secret circumvents the Coalition's official Auction. 
The Vemene doesn't have to pay over Oriflamme's host cut which is 55%. 
On a multi million credit deal, this is alot of money.  The buyers get
to buy wears at 10-20% of the rate that they would fetch at auction,
and they also get first pick.  Normally the Coalition Navy and
Exploratory Service get first pick of all ships, weapons and other
military hardware.  The Vemene will also sell documents saying that the
recovered gear was bought at a legitimate auction, allowing the buyer
to take the items inside of the Coalition.  The importation of
non-quarantined goods carries severe penalties on every Coalition
world. It is a capital offense on all but a few worlds.  The reason for
this is the fear of Virus infected equipment.
    Oriflamme is a very restrictive world, with many illegal and
control items. These include drugs, weapons, data encryption devices,
and others.  There is a great deal of money to be made in selling
contraband, and the Vemene tries to make as much as possible.  The
Vemene will engage in just about any activity which will generate large
amounts of cash.
    
 

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 12:30:55 -0400
From: "Michael L. Galligan" <teflonkid@voyager.net>
Subject: SS and SF by KB

I have been following the TML for quite some time now.  I also have been
playing traveller since the late 70's.  I would like to personally and
publically thank Kenneth Bearden for his outstanding effort on
reworking  the most intrigral portion of the t4 game.  Thank you.  It
works.  It works well.  And with the finally touch ups recently
presented, it is a wonder to me, why Kenneth isn't immediately hired by
IG to work with this game.  Teflonkid out.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 09:50:01 -0700
From: jdconnors@genmagic.com (joel connors)
Subject: Question- IR sigs for small craft.

Craig, 

Great message, regarding the IR and detecting Starship sized targets.

Can you give a similar analysis for the following ship style.

A small 5-10 Grav plate driven craft with no internal life support. The
Pilot would be using Space Battledress for his life support.

Thanks 

Joel Connors

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1170
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest      Thursday, April 10 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1171



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Fighters: Stack them Compensators!
Abuse of Armor
Re: KBv2.0 & Experience
Re: Fighters: Stack them Compensators!
Re: KBv2.0
heard at a T4 game
Re: Fighters revisted
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Re: IR Sensors in Space
IR masking.
Re: Fighters my Cr.02
Re: Fighters-just my .02Cr
Psychohistory and the Final War
Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII
Re: Pigeon Power!
Re: KBv2.0 & Experience
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1170
Icons - Vegan, Hiver and k'kree
Re: Missiles+Fighters
Re: Missiles+fighters II

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 13:29:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Macpherson <john35@wharton.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: Fighters: Stack them Compensators!

Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com> said:
> Stacking g-comp is a serious violation of traveller canon.  Yeah, I
> hate to be the super canon cop, but if you allow this, toss all
> traveller naval history out the window.  It also breaks all
> published ship designs since any military ship that *doesn't* do
> this (if allowed) is toast.

	It's actually not as bad as all that.  Past 6G the volume of 
thrusters you need just to push your thrusters becomes so much that the 
size and cost of additional Gs goes up very rapidly -- even with 
fusion+.  I tried to design a 9G fighter and it took over 40 Tons of 
drives and powerplant to push less than 10 Tons of crew and weapons.  
Even worse, the whole thing cost something like 80MCr and it still didn't 
have a weapon that could hurt a warship.
	I think you could build a sort of "after-burner" with heplar, 
since the thrusters themselves are so small, but you couldn't carry a 
enough fuel to do really big Gs for very long.  Still, this is one way 
fighters might be somewhat rehabilitated.  A high-G boost would help give 
launched missiles higher CV or could be used for interception missions.
	The big change for warships is not that ships will go above 6G
very often, but that g-comp technology will no longer be the limit on Gs,
power and thrust technology will.
	

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 11:00:40 -0700
From: Mark Bradley <MBradley@gwgate.swrcb.ca.gov>
Subject: Abuse of Armor

In using SSDS, there seems to be no realistic limit to the about of armor
you can put on a ship.  This armor costs MCrs, and that is a limitation,
and the armor does take up a mild amount of volume, but SSDS does not
address the mass of the ship.

I know that when I've raised the mass issue in the past, people have
replied that it's just "too hard" to do the iterative calculations, so we
ballpark the thrust needed at 10*G*Displacement Tonnage.  The problem
is that a 400t unarmored hull requires the same size maneuver drives as
a 400t hull with an armor rating of 80!

Are there any suggestions about how to place realistic limitations on the
mass of the ship, or to at least account for the mass in maneuverability?

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 18:59:49 +0100
From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: KBv2.0 & Experience

Given that 3*skill level is now "experience", in the excellent 
KBv2.0, this naturally yields a system for rating skill improvements:

When a skill is improved through experience (insert your favourite 
method here), the character's *experience* in that skill increases by 
1.  After 3 such increases, the character has attained the next level 
of skill.

Instruction in a skill will work similarly.


Nick

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 13:53:43 -0700
From: Danny_M._Moody@mailhost.bridge.com (Danny M. Moody)
Subject: Re: Fighters: Stack them Compensators!

Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com> said:
>> Stacking g-comp is a serious violation of traveller canon.  Yeah, I
>> hate to be the super canon cop, but if you allow this, toss all
>> traveller naval history out the window.  It also breaks all
>> published ship designs since any military ship that *doesn't* do
>> this (if allowed) is toast.

[snip]
>        The big change for warships is not that ships will go above 6G
>very often, but that g-comp technology will no longer be the limit on Gs,
>power and thrust technology will.

Also, it will become very expensive to GComp the entire ship and not just accel 
couches if you want to do something very important - damage control.  Stacked 
GComp works for fighter pilots strapped to their couches for the entire combat, 
but wouldn't allow any damage control on larger ship.

- -Vanya

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 13:37:32 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: KBv2.0

> Hi,
> 
> 	I was just reading the task system that you created, and I was
> wondering if I could use it with the TNE rules.  It seems to me that I
> could, if I change the task system to T4, and keep the rest of TNE.  I'm
> relatively new to Traveller, and haven't learned everything that I need
> to know as yet.  If you have any thoughts on what I've suggested, I'd
> appreciate hearing them.

Hey, Jeff, thanks for the interest.

As a matter of fact, I went through two rules conversions before I 
came up with the KBvX.X task systems.  Before T4 came out, I 
converted the TNE rules to the 2 D6 system from MegaTraveller.

The thing is that I really liked the detail put into TNE, but I 
thought that removing the six siders from Traveller was 
blasphamous--kinda like playing D&D with percental dice instead of 
the 20 sider.

Then T4 came out, and I converted that detailed system (based on TNE) 
to the T4 task system.

Then I realised that the T4 task system was flawed, so I developed 
KBv1.1 (KBv1.0 had a bug in it).  This might be what you are looking 
for.  If you like the system, I've probably already done all the 
conversion work for you.

Where can you get these two conversions?

The KBv1.1 system is the one you are most likely interested in.  
Peter Miller has it posted on his web site.  You can link there from 
the IG jump page.

If you are Word v2.0 capable, I've got it in a file.  Let me know, 
and I'll send it to you as an attachment to an e-mail (or just print 
the stuff on Peter Miller's page).

You might be asking yourself, "Why did he switch if he liked the TNE 
detail so much?"  Well, the answer to that is that, although I liked 
the detail, it required a lot of GM work, and the TNE system of doing 
things is clunky.

Take a round of autofire, for instance.  In TNE, you roll for every 
bullet fired (I converted this nicely to D12s in my conversion--just 
pick up a hand full of D12s and look for which ones resulted in 
natural 12's.  Those were your hits.).  Since a character can squeze 
the trigger 5 times in a TNE combat round, and each pull of the 
trigger resulted in 5 rounds being shot, that's a lot of dice throws.

In addition, some TNE characters are allowed two actions in a round.  
What that means is that after you get through rolling these 25 dice 
(five throws of 5 D12s for the autofire), you can take another action 
in the same round to do it all over again.  Now, we're talking 50 
dice throws in a combat round!

On top of that, for every hit you make, you roll another set of dice 
to see where you hit.  And recoil?  That's based on your character's 
Str, and it is adjusted for each burst--meaning that there's not just 
one modifier you use throughout the combat round.  There's a modifier 
for burst #1, a heavier modifier for burst #2, an bigger one for 
burst #3, etc.

What I'm getting at here is that, although I greatly admire the level 
of detail that was put into TNE, you've got to be an extremely 
patient gearhead to want to roll all of that just for one character 
in one combat round that lasts 6 seconds of game time.

So, now, I'm a convert to the simpleness of the T4 system.  In areas 
where I think T4 is too simple, I add detail.

Another thing that this affords me is that, with the converted 
system, I was always having to tinker with it for problems that came 
up in game play.  By using the printed rules (or, mostly the printed 
rules--I use KBv2.0, of course), this requirement on my time is 
minimized.

My recommendation for a new player such as yourself?  Avoid all the 
headaches, and use the T4 system by itself (with the KBv2.0 
modification, of course).  If you want to play in the TNE milieu, 
that's fine--just use the T4 mechanics.  I'm running my campaign in 
the Classic Traveller era circa 1105, and there is no problems at all 
using the T4 mechanics.

Of course, if you do this, much of the mumbo jumbo in your TNE 
products will no longer be useful.  I've found that CT and MT are 
much easier conversions (some conversions means things 
like--weapons don't require conversion while armor does) than TNE.

I'd use the TNE adventure modules, history, and ideas, but I'd only 
use the T4 game mechanics system.

This also has the benefit of keeping you current on the official 
(read in-print) game as it continues to come out.

Even so, let me know if you want the TNE coversion I did (or look at 
it on Peter Miller's site).

> 	On of the first things that my PC's noticed about the TNE rules is that
> there is no advantage to having a good skill, if you don't have a high
> stat to begin with.  There is no variation between (skill-4, stat-6) and
> (skill-1, stat-10).  We have been looking for a way to counteract this
> problem.

My TNE rules conversion fixes this by using KBv1.1.  You'll see it in 
the rules I mentioned above.  You can just as easily use KBv2.0, 
which is a much, much better task system.

If you have any other questions/comments, then you know how to reach 
me.  

Good luck,

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 16:08:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: pierre-louis constantin <Pierre-Louis.Constantin@DMI.USherb.CA>
Subject: heard at a T4 game

 
	"You came in this?  You're Fossier than I thought!"
	:)
 
(Star Wars fans should have no trouble identifying that quote :)

- -- 
Pierre-Louis Constantin, ift. a. 	"He whose name was writ in E-mail."
(: "I hate fanatics with a passion; all extremists should be shot." :)
	    How's my surfing? http://www.dmi.usherb.ca/~constanp/

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 16:20:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher Russell <russcm@zoomnet.net>
Subject: Re: Fighters revisted

> Like the Cylon fighters used crews of three?
> 
> To quote from the only *decent* Episode of Galactica 1980:
> 
> "We were taking a vote on what to do when the planet came up and hit us."

Two words, "Command Decision".

One crewmen should always be in command, usually the pilot. That was one
downfall of the Cylons, too autonomous.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 16:33:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher Russell <russcm@zoomnet.net>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

> Mainframes also tend to go for the huge data crunching stuff. For
> example, the IRS has a batch job that takes 3 *weeks*. It's processing
> amounts of data that boggle the mind. It's written in *optimized
> assembler* just to get the run time down that far. And you don't even
> want to *think* about the data storage it needs.
> 
> Imagine what the Imperial tax people have to crunch through!

I'd immagine the Imperial tax collection system is greatly decentralized.
Local systems would bear much of the burden of tax collection, sending on
processed information to the next level of the imperial beurocracy. Even
then, the computers used would probably run on massively parallel
architecture, greatly speeding up the process.

The IRS's problem is that it is still using machines that do not have any
sort of parallel processing, and likely are still runing under 25mhz.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 14:43:15 -0600
From: Jon Goff <jongoff@et.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: IR Sensors in Space

> Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 14:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>

> As for propagation drop...I really think you're seriously under- 
> estimating just how intrinsically IR 'bright' a starship is, *by its 
> very nature* (having fusion and livable quarters on board).  Also, 
> remember we're talking about band-sensitive sensors -- hiding a fusion 
> drive against a habitable planet or the corona won't work, because the 
> spectrum will stand out like a sore thumb.

Actually, IIRC EM wave energy is inversely proportional to the square of
the range (in meters).  Thus even if it does stick out like a sore 
thumb at 100km doesn't mean it does at 300,000 km.  As it is, the 
heat level at 300,000km will be .00000011 of the energy at 100km.  The
fact is that that star is hot, but it is very far away.  The fact is,
the planet is hot--but it too is very far away.  It is the same problem
with lasers.  The energy spreads out as the EM Wave propagates. 

> Having made my living off sensors for a number of years (not any more,
> though), I hope you'll trust that I'm giving you the straight dope 
> here.

Sorry if I sounded snotty, I just thought your response to that one guy
was a bit rude.

~Jon

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 16:53:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher Russell <russcm@zoomnet.net>
Subject: IR masking.

I heard recently information on how reaserch into sound waves has produced
technology that can deaden sound by transmitting an inverse of the wave.
Now, taking some assuptions from what I know of physics, I have a theory
on a way to mask IR.

1) Infrared is an electromagnetic emission.

2) Electromagnetic energy has properties of a wave.

3) Waves can be dampened by transmitting an inverse of the wave into the
wave.

So, if a ship can sense, perhaps with sensors along it's hull, it's own
emissions, then it can transmit an inverse of the wave, perhaps with
something similar to a radio transmitter, since radio is a type of EM
emission, set to emit in the IR wavelength. This would be very difficult
to get perfect, so it would only dampen the emission, not eliminate it.

This, in theory, is how EMM would work in Milenu 0. This also may be the
founding principle on cloaking.

Flames welcome.

Christopher M. Russell
russcm@zoomnet.net

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 15:03:23 -0600
From: Jon Goff <jongoff@et.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: Fighters my Cr.02

Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com> wrote:

> I bet this was in unmodified BR, right?

Actually, I did use your task level rule fix.
 
> BR was seriously broken (all tasks were on level too easy comopared
> to BL).  Also, missile damage was way, way way out of whack.  If a
> det-laser in BR did more than a damage of 3, something was wrong.
> You draw a missile damage card in BR and get a 1 to 6, right?  Then
> double it for Outstanding success.  A *single* missile in BR
> (unfixed) can kill anything (and a det-laser missile, at that).
> Also, since tasks are all one level too easy (look at the TNE to BR
> task conversion chart near the end) getting Outstanding Success is a
> cake walk.

I did fix the task level, it was just the fact that he was ambushed, and
I allready had 16 powered down missles that just needed to be "popped."
 
I just ran a rough calculation, and I found that on average, a 500kt 
Xray missle will get through with enough for a critical (if you combine
the damage, if not, you just have 3 serious hits).  With 16 of these,
he is in bad shape even if you used BL instead of BR.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:00:06 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Fighters-just my .02Cr

Merrick wrote: <<I bet this was in unmodified BR, right?

BR was seriously broken (all tasks were on level too easy comopared
to BL).  Also, missile damage was way, way way out of whack.  If a
det-laser in BR did more than a damage of 3, something was wrong.
You draw a missile damage card in BR and get a 1 to 6, right?  Then
double it for Outstanding success.  A *single* missile in BR
(unfixed) can kill anything (and a det-laser missile, at that).
Also, since tasks are all one level too easy (look at the TNE to BR
task conversion chart near the end) getting Outstanding Success is a
cake walk.>>

Is the fix posted anywhere? I've got a copy of Battlerider sitting unplayed
(finals intervened and I just haven't had the time since!) that I'd like to
fix...


- --------------- Dom Mooney (dom@cybergoths.u-net.com)---------------
"The fall of Empire, Gentlemen, is a massive thing, however, and not easily
fought. It is dictated by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a
freezing of caste, a damming of curiousity - a hundred other factors."
                                 Hari Seldon - Azimov's "Foundation"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:46:29 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Psychohistory and the Final War

Just been re-reading the Regency Sourcebook and the MT Imp Encyclopedia and
it posed some interesting questions (too me at least).

Q: Did Strephon know that the Final War/Rebellion was coming?

We know the Imperium used psychohistory from the Psionics Suppressions, and
that study continued at several (unidentified) Imperial Universities.

We know that Strephon instigated several reforms to try to unstagnate the
Imperium (and that Dulinor's assassination was a for a similar motive).

We know that Strephon instigated the Project Jumpstart caches as a solution
to any collapse (an idea not unlike that of an "encyclopedia" galactica
proposed by Seldon in Foundation).

We know that Longbow gave some kind of warning (of the Empress Wave)  [but
no one on the list who knows is telling!]

Q: Where Strephon's reforms instigated as a response to something that was
going to happen in the 1200's seen by Longbow, something that the present
Imperial structure couldn't handle and so needed changes? And was the
action of Dulinor like the 'Mule' in the Azimov books, a single person
whose actions could not be predicted and changed the events?

Actually, IMO Virus is probably more like the Mule - Dulinor was really
more predictable.

So was the collapse of the Imperium *another* failed imperial psychohistory
attempt, or a successful Hiver one....

Thoughts anyone?



- --------------- Dom Mooney (dom@cybergoths.u-net.com)---------------
"The fall of Empire, Gentlemen, is a massive thing, however, and not easily
fought. It is dictated by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a
freezing of caste, a damming of curiousity - a hundred other factors."
                                 Hari Seldon - Azimov's "Foundation"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 15:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 17:38:50 +0200 (METDST)
> From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
> 
> Leonard Erickson writes:
> >>Just because the limited ship combat systems for traveller don't 
> >> address it doesn't mean that there wouldn't be ECM and ECCM to help 
> >>ships avoid detection at higher tech levels.
> > 
> >Only if you repeal a bunch of the laws of physics.
> 
> Leonard, you're making (what I think is) a big mistake here. You're taking
> it for granted that the Traveller Universe works the same way the real 
> universe works. Let me let you in on a secret. It dosen't.

It's in *everyone*'s best interests to make Trav reality match the
physical universe as closely as possible, minimizing hand-waved
exceptions.  The reason can be expressed as the Law of Unintended
Consequences:  "Every action taken to achieve a goal will also achieve
one or more unintended consequences, which may directly or indirectly
interfere with that goal, or cause greater harm elsewhere."

> Just to give
> you an example, detection ranges dosen't match. You're doing things
> exactly backwards. You're trying to make a game be as realistic as 
> possible and damn the playability. A game should be as playable as 
> possible and... well, no, not damn the realism, because in a role-playing
> game realism is quite important. Just not as important as playability.

I agree that playability is paramount.  But the corners we cut should
(whenever possible) be in simplifying reality, rather than changing it.
Really piloting a starship to orbit would involve years of training and
experience, and thousands of decisions and actions; in the game, we reduce
it to a skill roll or two, and perhaps some description by the players and
GM of what's going on.  That's fine, because any given group of players
can "add back" detail to any desired level without encountering
inconsistencies, or breaking the system.

But when you warp physics to achieve playability, it tends to bite you,
hard, sooner or later.  Put in reactionless drives so players needn't
worry about maneuvering, and somebody discovers the planet-killing near-c
lifeboat, which remains a gaping hole in consitency to this day.  Put in
super-duper missiles so fighters have something to pop battleships with,
and you have to explain why the BBs aren't lobbing them directly at each
other.

> But what makes a game universe "realistic" isn't realism, it's consistency.
> That's where realism has an edge, because if you keep things realistic
> you get consistency thrown in for free. And that's usually a good thing,
> but not always. Not when the realism impairs the playability.

The trouble is that, when adding a new piece of tech, it's often
*impossible* a priori to work out all its consequences.

> Instead of saying that this or that game rule is unrealistic you should
> first decide whether it is a good rule (and I have to weasel a bit here,
> because I haven't worked much with space combat, so I don't know if the
> detection rules in Traveller are good or not (heck, I don't even know
> exactly _what_ the rules are in T4); however for purposes of this argument
> I'm going to assume that they work fine in a game context. If that is the
> case, then what you need to do is to make up some new laws of physics that
> makes them possible.

I have no probs with BL/BR detection rules.  They tend to underestimate
sensor performance a bit, in my view, but not badly enough that anything
else breaks as a result.

> Here's one possiblilty: You say that there are no heat sinks in space. How
> do you know? In Traveller you have at least 36 parrallel dimensions (the
> 36 jump-spaces) and quite possibly more. Perhaps a "sub-space" that
> thurusters "thrust" against. Or define a subspace that has no other
> practical function than being a heat sink for ships that want to hide in
> empty space.

Give me a heat sink into a parallel dimension, and I'll give you five
different above-unity perpetual motion machines.  Mess with
thermodynamics, and *everything* changes.  You're playing with the
energy-bookkeeping system of the entire Universe.  The unintended
consequences grow exponentially.

> Or why NOT repeal the laws of physics in certain carefully defined
> circumstances? Create a "stealth field", if you like. The real universe
> isn't going to mind. 

Traveller already has one of these, the black globe, at high TLs.  It's a
good piece of handwaving tech, because it's limited, self-consistent, and
doesn't violate any fundamental physical principles (none that I can think
of, anyway).  A general "stealth field" is a can of worms.  How does it
work?  What else can it do?  If it masks IR emissions, where does the IR
energy go?  Does the ship cook from having nowhere to dump excess heat?
If not, why not?  If it's a good IR absorber/deflector, can you build a
super-maser with it?  And so on.

> The problem is to make sure your new laws dosen't have undesired 
> ramifications. Take the heat sink idea, for example. Postulate the
> availability of a heat sink inside a starship and no other changes in
> the laws of physics. Would that allow other, undesirable, effects?
> (Like drawing power out of thin air).

And the answer is, yes, it would.  That's what people have been saying.
The closest things to IR masking you can do without breaking physics and
introducing unintended consequences are:

(a) Chill the side of the ship toward your opponent, radiate a *lot* more
    heat off the other side.  This takes truly scary amounts of power,
    and still only gives you stealth in one direction -- you're visible
    for light-hours from the other directions.

(b) Use flares/decoys to confuse the IR target picture, losing yourself
    in the clutter.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 10:26:58 +1200
From: Rupert Boleyn <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Pigeon Power!

At 21:47 9/04/97 -0500, you wrote:

Snip
>
>Was the original German TV-Guidance wire or radio based?  If I'm recalling
>it right, they were experimenting with a wire guided bomb from launched
>seaplanes to attack shipping.
>
>
>Eris

IIRC they tried both radio & wire.

The Germans weren't just experimenting - a guided bomb damaged one of H.M.S.
Warspite's main turrets so badly that it never worked again.

R. Boleyn

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 16:44:35 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: KBv2.0 & Experience

> Given that 3*skill level is now "experience", in the excellent 
> KBv2.0, this naturally yields a system for rating skill improvements:
> 
> When a skill is improved through experience (insert your favourite 
> method here), the character's *experience* in that skill increases by 
> 1.  After 3 such increases, the character has attained the next level 
> of skill.
> 
> Instruction in a skill will work similarly.

I like your train of thought here, Nick.  I've been brainstorming 
about fixing the xp system along the same lines, but I'm not sure I 
follow exactly.

Can you give me an example of how you see a xp system working with 
this?

If I do follow correctly, you're saying that (like you said, insert a 
method for xp advancement here) after you get an increase, it really 
doesn't effect your chances of success until you get three such 
increases.

At that point, the skill is advanced one level.

Is that what you mean, or am I totally off base?

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 18:20:43 -0400
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1170

Hans Rancke wrote:

>Easy. I can speak from experience here. The university *won't have* all
>the info. Most *technology* (as opposed to science) tends to involve
>trade secrets. For example, any chemistry class will tell you the
>melting point of silicon. And if you go to work for a company that
>produces hyperpure silicon for semiconductor use, and work in the right
>department, you'll learn that the figure in the books is *wrong*. The
>correct figure is a trade secret!
> 
>The university will have the *principles* things are based on, but the
>details of making them work is another matter. 
>>>
But if you know the principles you can work out the details. The
Darrians
had the principles and they had 13 centuries to work out the details 
(assuming they began when Mire reached TL 9) and they still didn't have 
them in 1100. To me that is a lot more incredible than stealth fields.

No, if they don't have the details in 1100 then it's because they lost
the principles too.
<<<

Just a thought, the number one reason I can think of for the Darrians
not regaining their technology is FEAR. After the nova any study in
technology would be shunned for hundreds of years. Even after some of
the fear has been removed, conservativeness will impede all research. 

Bob

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 11:09:51 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Icons - Vegan, Hiver and k'kree

The imperium and the various incarnations of the Solomani Confederation
have there symbols (starburst and UN stars) - how about the Vegans, K'Kree
and hiver?  

If none exist id be willing to draw some up, just need a description.


Peace,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


Rippo
THE THREE LOVELIEST THINGS
I have seen moon and blossoms; now i go
To view the last and loveliest: the snow.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 10:55:23 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Missiles+Fighters

On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Anders Backman wrote:

> >I dont think it would be beyond the realm of traveller to build a small
> >enougth neutrino guidnace system so it would fit on a missile.  It may be
> >short range, but thats why its delivered by a fighter.
> >
> Actually if CT Robots is considered canon there could be neutrino sensors a
> few kilos in mass but I'm not shure about range. The text says something
> like "detects nearby powerplants". Come to think of it wasn't there
> neutrino sensors for missiles in the Journal Missiles supplement?

Yes your correct, the size of the device is 4kg, costs 1000cr and is
available at tl11.

Peace,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


Rippo
THE THREE LOVELIEST THINGS
I have seen moon and blossoms; now i go
To view the last and loveliest: the snow.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 11:05:03 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Missiles+fighters II

On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Christopher M. Russell wrote:

Makes sense, so it looks like we have found a short ranged BB killing
weapon.  Okay, any suggestions for defense?

How about using a planets atmosphere as a horizon?  Darting in and out of
the atmosphere for protection?  Since most battles will be resolved around
stellar objects, mostly planets and gas giants, this may make sense.

> Something to notice, the missile doesn't actually need to expend fuel until
> the terminal phase of the flight. It only needs the fuel to correct for aim
> and to get a final burst of speed near the end of the flight.
> 
> Initially, the missile would have the heading and velocity of the launching
> platform, much like a tossed bomb. NOTE this will work only on a platform
> capable of high speed runs, so not likely any capital ships using this tactic.
> If an initial burst of speed is needed (like for launching from a capital
> ship), a first stage or a short fuel burn can be included to give that
> boost, adding to the initial velocity.
> 
> 


Peace,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


Rippo
THE THREE LOVELIEST THINGS
I have seen moon and blossoms; now i go
To view the last and loveliest: the snow.

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1171
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest       Friday, April 11 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1172



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: What to Call M:0 RICE/BARD Papers?
Re: Info needed (jump duration / accuracy)
Re: CSC Armor?
Re: Submarine Fighters
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Re: Fighters revisted
Task System
Re: IR masking.
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Re: Fighters - Revisted II
Re: Sensor strength analysis
Re: Subject: Fighters revisted
Re: Fighters-just my .02Cr
Re: Abuse of Armor
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Re: Fighters: Stack them Compensators!
Re: Subject: Fighters revisted
Re: Sylea --> Capitol
Re: Fighters BB Killing Weapons

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 19:33:51 -0400
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: What to Call M:0 RICE/BARD Papers?

>Carlos' efforts on the Geonee are inspiring me to do some work on my
>favorite underdeveloped variant of humaniti, the Suerrat.  But thoughts
>on their astrography and position leads to the question...
>
>The TML already sees RICE (Regency Institute for Cultural Exchange) and
>BARD (Bureau of Aggregate Reference Data) Papers for worlds in the TNE
>milieu.  But what should we call such things written from a T4, Milieu:0
>vantage point?
>
>ZIPP?  (Zhunastu Industries Planetary Profile)
>ICCI?  (Imperial Contact and Cultural Information)
>SARI?  (Sylean Astrographic Research Initiative)
>
>Your suggestions, serious and tongue-in-cheek both, would be appreciated.


ICKC (Imperial Cultural Knowledge Collection) aka Icky-C (Just what type
of cultural samples do you mean to collect?)
Culture: a. The growing of microorganisms, tissue cells, or other living
matter in a specially prepared nutrient medium. b. Such a growth or
colony, as of bacteria.
:)

But really, you sould keep it with the AAB, as much of the information
will be collected there.

So something like:

ACIC (AAB Cultural Information Collection)
ACPI (AAB Collection of Plantetary Information)

Or change it to some other string of letters and come up with a few
words in Vilani.

Bob

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 20:02:47 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Info needed (jump duration / accuracy)

>>>2. creating "communications routes"
>>>       The first edition of the "little black books" had a table for
>>>       determining if there was a "route" between systems based on the
>>>       distance and starport type. I can't find my copies, if someone
>>>       else can, please post.
>>
>> Book 3 mentions trade routes in its subsector mapping chapter.  There is no
>> table in my book;  they essentially say "draw them in where they make sense."
>
>I know. That's what my *second* edition books (from "Deluxe Traveller")
>say. But I *Know* that the first ed books have a table. I just haven't
>found that box in my storage locker yet.

This is from the help file of the Galactic program w/ comments by Jim
Vassilakos:

Special note regarding jump routes
- ----------------------------------

There's a curious table on the second page of Book 3 (Worlds and
Adventures) of the Classic (i.e. first) Traveller Edition. This
tables goes as follows:

World              Jump Distance
Pair     Jump-1   Jump-2   Jump-3   Jump-4
A-A        1        2        4        5
A-B        1        3        4        5
A-C        1        4        6        -
A-D        1        5        -        -
A-E        2        -        -        -      Roll the cross-index
B-B        1        3        4        6      or greater on a d6
B-C        2        4        6        -      in order for a jump
B-D        3        6        -        -      route to be present
B-E        4        -        -        -
C-C        3        6        -        -
C-D        4        -        -        -
C-E        4        -        -        -
D-D        4        -        -        -
D-E        5        -        -        -
E-E        6        -        -        -

Now, just looking at it, one would think that all's well and
good, but that's not quite the case. The table was excluded from
the "Traveller Book" (a sort of v1.1 of the Classic Rules) as
well as from MegaTraveller (v2.0, or so it's considered) and the
reason may be that this table results in an awful lot of jump
routes on your subsector maps, giving them a sort of "crowded"
look. In fact, I'm convinced that GDW wasn't using this table (or
even anything approximating it) when they released the Spinward
Marches and Solomani Rim. Most likely, they drew the important
jump routes by hand.

Nonetheless, I figured it would be a good idea to include the
feature of automatically generated jump routes within the sector
generator, so the following optional table is what I finally
settled on:

World              Jump Distance
Pair     Jump-1   Jump-2   Jump-3   Jump-4
A-A        1        2        5        6
A-B        3        4        6        -
A-C        5        6        -        -
B-B        5        6        -        -
B-C        5        -        -        -

As you can surmise, this table will result in a lot fewer jump
routes than the previous one, however, you might want to go even
further by creating your own table, perhaps a very sparse one
just to include the basic routes (A-A & A-B) which you know
should be there. Hence, when generating your sector, you can opt
for the official table, the homebrew one which I created, or one
of your own creation. The best method of all, in fact, would
probably be to skip jump route generation altogether and just do
it by hand. In any case, it's entirely up to you.

The only other thing worth mentioning is that regardless of what
table you end up using, red zone (interdicted) worlds are never
attached to jump routes. Hence, if you want to have a red zone as
part of your jump route, you'll definitely need to go into the
subsector file and put it there.

**********************************************************
  Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
 CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 19:26:34 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: CSC Armor?

At 02:09 AM 4/10/97 +0000, "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com> wrote:
>
>> Using CSC, if you know you want to end up with an AV of 64 and you know
>> what material you'll be using, you just need to figure out the actual
>> thickness of the armor.  In CSC, Greg goes from cm to AV, but not from AV
>> to cm, so I *think* I have this conversion right.
>
>That is right.  I've been trying to use the CSC codes to come up with 
>T4 armor values for the TNE/MT/CT armors that are not printed in the 
>T4 books.
>
>I'm having a tough time of it, though.  The CSC was written for 
>vehicles, and my guesses for how thick TL 14 Combat Armor (circa 
>1105) are not very good.
>
>I'll keep trying.  I need T4 armor values for my circa 1105 armor 
>types by the next time we play.
>

Kenneth,

I have already done what you have asked for, in the past I have converted
MT/TNE/CT into CSC values. If you have seen the table of alternate
materials, like the ones on Dave Golden's page I think?, those are the ones
I have converted. If you want I can post them to the list or email them to
you direct. I can also send you the messages from Greg on how he converted
to CSC values.


- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 10:36:20 +0930 (CST)
From: David Sarkies <oedipus@student.adelaide.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Leonard Erickson wrote:

> In mail you write:
> 
> >> "Big" ships can't operate effectively at accelerations higher than
> >> their g-comp rating. Fighters *can*. 
> >
> > Huh?  I can see how they could rotate better, but whay could a guy
> > in a couch on a fighter pull more (linear) acceleration gs than a
> > guy in a couch on a BB?
> 
> Easy. The guy in the fighter is picked for a higher g tolerance. The
> guy in the BB can't boost above the *lowest* g tolerance in the crew
> unless he's willing to sacrifice that crew member (and it won't always
> be certain *which* crew members he'll be injuring or killing at a given
> acceleration).

Just a little addition: according Newtons law f=ma, rarranging it to a=f/m
says that the force needed to accellerate an object of mass M needs to be
much greater than the force needed to accellerate an object of mass m; so
unless the big ship is apply a greater force to itself than that of a
fighter then the fighter would accellerate faster. In otherwords, you need
much more power to accellerate a big ship than a fighter which means that
it is very probable for a fighter to be able to accellerate faster than a
big ship. The only exception is if the engine of the big ship is so
powerful that the force it supplys is capable of accellerating it at
greater speeds. In other words, it is not the point whether a figher
accellerates faster than a big ship but which has the more powerful
engine.
 
> > I can see the point if we assume the BB crew is walking around
> > and not strapped in.
> 
> That too.
> 
> > What do you mean?
> 
> A combo of the fact that one a big ship you tend to need the crew to be
> able to move around, and the "ship is limited to the *lowest*
> g-tolerance on board" and the "fighter pilots are picked for high
> g-tolerance" does it quite nicely.
> 
> -- 
> Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
>  shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
> leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort
> 

May the grace and peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all
Oedipus.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:18:47 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

>TL12-15 computers definitely won't have any keyboards

Oh? and what do you suggest using for imput in crowded starport lounges
or in lecture halls where you don't want to disturb/be overheard by others?
Pens? I can type a lot faster than I can write, and with less strain. I won't 
even mention legibility... :)

**********************************************************
  Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
 CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 10:50:35 +0930 (CST)
From: David Sarkies <oedipus@student.adelaide.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

With computers; would people consider using a virtual realtity type matrix
for high tech world too cyberpunkish. Though one may be crossing genres
with this assumption, I believe that with the direction our computer
technology is heading (even though VR is really only used for leasure at
the moment) it would be reasonable to accept that in 2020 (when cyberpunk
is set) that we will back a fully working VR matrix. Thus I think that it
would be very appropriate for early stellar+ worlds to also utalise the VR
matrix computer system.

If this is that case, how do you think virus would appear in the VR
matrix.

May the grace and peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all
Oedipus.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 22:05:57 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: Fighters revisted

Leonard Erickson writes: 

>> Assuming the Imperium shuns
>> such advances already on the horizon on TL 8 Earth, there is always
>> another solution: crew your fighters with two people instead of one or
>> three instead of two.
>
>Like the Cylon fighters used crews of three?

   Well actually I was thinking of an American fighter-bomber, the
Avenger (I think) that had a crew of three.  It was the same type former
President of the U.S. George Bush flew back in WW II and was shot down
in.

   The idea is that if there are simply too many tasks for one person to
perform, add another person.  Divide the tasks in such a manner so that
the crew can form effective teams.  Works for the F-14 Tomcat.

>To quote from the only *decent* Episode of Galactica 1980:

   I disagree.  There were no decent episodes of Galactica 1980, much to
my bitter disappointment.

Regards,

Harold

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:22:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Task System

The Lighter Side of the Task System Debate
==========================================

Everyone else has thrown in their own pet systems for T4's task system, 
might as well throw mine out there:

DICE CODES
- ----------
Simple           2D2(Special Traveller coins will be minted for this purpose) 
Easy             2D4
Routine          2D6
Difficult        2D8
Formidable       2D10
Staggering       2D12
Improbable       2D20
Highly Unlikely  2D30
Impossible       2D100


This neatly side-steps the failings of all previous task systems, 
including KB 2.x. Namely, the horrid curve that using huge numbers of D6's 
involves.  And hey, it gets rid of those pesky D3's folks have been 
complaining about!


SPECTACULAR RESULTS
- -------------------

Spectacular Failure results from rolling 12 or more on any task throw.

Spectacular Success results from rolling 11 or less on any task throw.

Benefits: Easy to remember!  Chance for SF increases as difficulty 
increases!  Chance for SS decreases as difficulty increases!


FIGURING TARGET NUMBERS
- -----------------------

Target Numbers are figured as the square root of the characteristic, plus 
2^skill level.  


SPECIAL RULES
- -------------

Jack-of-All-Trades is figured by simply using the cube root of the 
characteristic, plus J! (JoT factorial).

Hasty Tasks: Characters can take half the time that is listed for the 
task, but at a penalty of making the difficulty 1 level harder.  They can 
take 1/4 the time for the task by making it 2 difficulty levels harder.  
They can make it take no time at all by making it 3 difficulty levels 
harder. 

Cautious Tasks: Characters can make the task drop to the Easy level by 
taking exactly 42 days to complete it.


Feeback appreciated!

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:34:53 +0000
From: twolf@unix.tfs.net
Subject: Re: IR masking.

> . This would be very
> difficult to get perfect, so it would only dampen the emission, not
> eliminate it.
> 
> This, in theory, is how EMM would work in Milenu 0. This also may be
> the founding principle on cloaking.
> 
> Flames welcome.
> 
I like it.  Great idea.  

Twolf

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 20:56:47 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

Paul D. Owensby wrote:
> 
> >TL12-15 computers definitely won't have any keyboards
> 
> Oh? and what do you suggest using for imput in crowded starport lounges
> or in lecture halls where you don't want to disturb/be overheard by others?
> Pens? I can type a lot faster than I can write, and with less strain. I won't
> even mention legibility... :)
> 

Picture a phone-booth structure. You use your voice! Bet you can
talk faster than you can type.

- -- 
Erwin Fritz
Unix/NT/LAN Guy
Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd.
http://www.glja.com

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 12:38:21 +0930 (CST)
From: David Sarkies <oedipus@student.adelaide.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Fighters - Revisted II

On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, Merrick Burkhardt wrote:

>  
> > I would like to just make a comment on what I think of fighters (I have
> > only just subscribed to the newsgroup so I don't know what's been said
> > before). I believe that to battleships, fighters can be a right pain in
> > the backside.
> > If you were a battleship capitain, what would you rather pefer: a head on
> > fight with another battleship or a fight with hundreds of little ships
> > that can weave in and out of your defense net. I know what I would prefer.
> 
> The fighters.  A hit by the enemy BB is death (spinal).  The
> fighters get killed off piecemeal, maybe do some damage here and
> there before dying.
> 

Granted one hit and they die, but, when you have hundreds of the little
buggers flying around and shooting at you then things start to even out.
One big ship can easily be shoot down (especially if you have bigger ships
than does it) but hundreds of tiny fighters and then the problems are sure
to stack up against you.
Even though Star Wars is probably a bit fantastic for this conversation,
you should note that it was the little fighters that were able to
penetrate the defense net of the death star and to the big ship. The big
ships were there to offer support while the little ships went in and did
their job.

May the grace and peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all
Oedipus.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 12:43:15 +0930 (CST)
From: David Sarkies <oedipus@student.adelaide.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Sensor strength analysis

On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Eris Reddoch wrote:

> On 04/09/97 at 03:27 PM,  anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman) said:
> 
> > I've been using such a system (and posted it to the list) for about 5
> > years now. Give each sensor type (optical,radar,mass,neutrino) a factor,
> > give each ship a profile with factors for (optical, radar, mass,
> > neutrino) and some rules for it. The total lack of interest in my system
> > last time I posted it reduced my interest in writing it for the list (I
> > use my own design system etc so some modifications has to be made) but
> > I'll repost it if there's any interest.
> 
> Anders, I'm interested. If you don't post it to the list, how about sending
> me a private email copy.  
>

Yeah, me to

May the grace and peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all
Oedipus.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:05:09 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: Fighters revisted

At 03:42 pm 04/10/97 +1000, you wrote:
>  Also, why waste
>space for control mechnisms and engines and fuel to get the 50g
>propulsion?  Fill that space with High Explosives.

	High explosives are a complete waste of money in space missiles. The bang
you get out of the chemical explosion ain't diddly, compared to the kinetic
energy of mass alone. 
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:21:40 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Fighters-just my .02Cr

At 09:00 pm 04/10/97 +0100, you wrote:
>Merrick wrote: <<I bet this was in unmodified BR, right?
>
>BR was seriously broken (all tasks were on level too easy comopared
>to BL).  Also, missile damage was way, way way out of whack.  If a
>det-laser in BR did more than a damage of 3, something was wrong.
>You draw a missile damage card in BR and get a 1 to 6, right?  Then
>double it for Outstanding success.  A *single* missile in BR
>(unfixed) can kill anything (and a det-laser missile, at that).
>Also, since tasks are all one level too easy (look at the TNE to BR
>task conversion chart near the end) getting Outstanding Success is a
>cake walk.>>
>
>Is the fix posted anywhere? I've got a copy of Battlerider sitting unplayed
>(finals intervened and I just haven't had the time since!) that I'd like to
>fix...

	One version of Merrick's BL and BR fixes was posted on my old website. I
haven't updated it for posting on my new one yet, but I'll try to get to it
this weekend. Meanwhile, I can email you the files if you'd like.
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:20:26 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Abuse of Armor

At 11:00 am 04/10/97 -0700, you wrote:
>In using SSDS, there seems to be no realistic limit to the about of armor
>you can put on a ship.  This armor costs MCrs, and that is a limitation,
>and the armor does take up a mild amount of volume, but SSDS does not
>address the mass of the ship.
>
>I know that when I've raised the mass issue in the past, people have
>replied that it's just "too hard" to do the iterative calculations, so we
>ballpark the thrust needed at 10*G*Displacement Tonnage.  The problem
>is that a 400t unarmored hull requires the same size maneuver drives as
>a 400t hull with an armor rating of 80!
>
>Are there any suggestions about how to place realistic limitations on the
>mass of the ship, or to at least account for the mass in maneuverability?

	I personally don't see that "iterative calculations are too hard." Even
with High Guard, there was some iteration when you found out you just
couldn't fit everything you wanted into the hull. It becomes a bit tedious
when done by hand, true, but it's still feasible. Besides, that's why God
created spreadsheets.
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:18:23 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

At 09:27 am 04/10/97 -0700, you wrote:
>On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, David J. Golden wrote:
>
>Snippage about 3G3...
>
>> 	Again, not directly related, but useable. I haven't decided whether I like
>> it yet, but I'm rather persnickety. Greg seems very thorough. The biggest
>> issue I've seen, browsing through it, is that no matter how big a weapon
>> gets, his T4 conversion produces a damage of 3D. Period.
>
>Well, not exactly. My design for a 20mm single shot sniper rifle does 8D
>of damage...;-) But you are right, reasonable handheld weapons do 2 or 3D
>of damage. This is, I think, due far more to the coarseness of the T4
>damage scale than anything else.

	Yes, exactly. According to the hypertext version, the chart on p107, the
maximum T4 damage for ANY weapon is 3D. 3g3 DV of 0-4 does 1/2D, 5-12 does
1D, 13-25 does 2D, and every value of 3g3 DV above 25 lists 3D in the
Traveller damage column. I couldn't find an equation to calculate Traveller
Damage based on 3g3 DV. How did you come up with 8D damage?
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:24:23 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Fighters: Stack them Compensators!

At 01:53 pm 04/10/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com> said:
>>> Stacking g-comp is a serious violation of traveller canon.  Yeah, I
>>> hate to be the super canon cop, but if you allow this, toss all
>>> traveller naval history out the window.  It also breaks all
>>> published ship designs since any military ship that *doesn't* do
>>> this (if allowed) is toast.
>
>[snip]
>>        The big change for warships is not that ships will go above 6G
>>very often, but that g-comp technology will no longer be the limit on Gs,
>>power and thrust technology will.
>
>Also, it will become very expensive to GComp the entire ship and not just
accel 
>couches if you want to do something very important - damage control.
Stacked 
>GComp works for fighter pilots strapped to their couches for the entire
combat, 
>but wouldn't allow any damage control on larger ship.

	So? If it were possible, I'd still stacked-G-comp the couches. You can
worry about damage control AFTER you survive the fight. And if you can't
continue to fight or run away without damage control, chances are you're
not going to be able to do high-G maneuvers anyway, so you don't care about
stacked G-comp.
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 12:48:38 +0930 (CST)
From: David Sarkies <oedipus@student.adelaide.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Subject: Fighters revisted

On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, James Lindsay wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Apr 1997 15:42:01 +1000 (EST), you wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, Douglas E. Berry wrote:
> > 
> > > At 02:08 AM 4/10/97 +1000, you wrote:
> > > 
> > > >Honestly, what is there to do in a future fighter?  The pilot says i want
> > > >to get there and off he goes, the pilot cant handle dodging and split
> > > >second manuevring, especially when were talking about speed of light
> > > >weapons, so the computer will do that.  A pilot cant handle really high G
> > > >acceleration, so automation (future hydrolics?) will do that also.
> > > 
> > > then why even send a pilot?  A missle, controlled by a MFD, can be flown out
> > > to a point where it goes active and attacks the next thing that meets it's
> > > target profile.  You want pico-second reaction times and the ability to
> > > withstand 50+ g's?  Don't send what is essentialy a passenger along.
> > 
> > 
> > You will need a pilot for a few reasons, the main reason is the type of
> > BB-killing missiles im thinking of are very short ranged.
> 
> If your missiles are extremely short *ranged*, you could still use
> them as submunitions in a larger missile.
> 
> > Also, why waste
> > space for control mechnisms and engines and fuel to get the 50g
> > propulsion?  Fill that space with High Explosives.
> 
> Why waste all the space for fighters, fighter fuel, launch tubes,
> pilots quarters, flight deck quarters, etc. back aboard the carrier
> when you can make far better use filling up that space with missile
> bays and magazines?

Okay, then were are you going to eat and sleep if your crew quarters have
been ripped out to put in missile bays. 

May the grace and peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all
Oedipus.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 13:15:48 +0930 (CST)
From: David Sarkies <oedipus@student.adelaide.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Sylea --> Capitol

On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Leonard Erickson wrote:

> In mail you write:
> 
> > I always wondered about this, too.
> > Additional, i found a reference in old MT lib-data as to Capital 
> > being in hex 0508. Checking M:0 i find that hex empty! Anyone???????
> 
> I'm starting a database of Traveller "geography", sectors, subsectors,
> stars, planets...
> 
> Anyway, I just finished entering what I could find in Alien Module 1
> (Aslan). On page 2 Kusyu is listed as 0408, on page 35 it's listed as
> 0305 in one paragraph, and 0309 in the next! For what it's worth, Atlas
> of the Imperium shows 0309. :-)
> 
> So never trust data that you haven't cross checked. :-)
> 
> ps, for anyone who cares, I put all three locations in the database.
> 

I'm insterested in this database (as for any information that I can add to
my Traveller universe).
 

May the grace and peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all
Oedipus.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 13:02:01 +0930 (CST)
From: David Sarkies <oedipus@student.adelaide.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Fighters BB Killing Weapons

On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Anders Backman wrote:

> >Wrong.  Antimatter in the Traveller universe isn't available as a
> >power source (and this would _include_ harnessing it for use as a
> >weapon) until TL 17+.
> 
> Using antimatter as a power source is totally different from using it as an
> explosive. The hard part is storing antimatter safely and that is done
> today in magnetic bottles at cryo temps. Just shut down the magnetic bottle
> and KABOOM.
> 
> If you postulate cheap antimatter however I don't see why you need a
> fighter to deploy it. Due to G-comp limits and human limits on Gs to take
> the fighter that depolys the 1000 G 300 s missile would be analogous to
> infantrymen on foot launching cruise missiles. So what I'm saying is your
> 1000 G missile won't make the fighters useful as BB killers as the BBs
> themselves kan shoot the same missiles.

The problem with anti-matter today is finding it. So far it is produced in
very small quantites in a laboratory outside of Chicago. There are
theories that it can be found suspended motionless in space but whether
that is true of not, I guess, is up to the GM.

May the grace and peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all
Oedipus.

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1172
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest       Friday, April 11 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1173



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII
Re: Fighters: Stack them Compensators!
Optional G-Comp Stacking
Re: The Half-Die
Re: CSC Armor?
Re: CSC Armor?
Solomani Rim Steller Objects?
pilots and training
Re: KBv2.0 & Experience
Re: Missiles+Fighters
Re: Missiles+fighters II
Re: Submarine Fighters
Re: IR Sensors in Space
Skill Aptitudes (dedicated to Eris Reddoch)
Re: Fighters - Revisted II

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 97 22:01:46 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

In a message dated 1997-04-09 14:57, John R. Snead wrote:

>The farm worlds and factory worlds set up of Traveller simply doesn't make
>sense in light of 90s technology.  With CSC and EA the actual technology
>in the game is getting better (though its still too conservative) but the
>social changes produced by these technologies are largely ignored. 

Conservative!? Sheesh. Maybe in some disciplines.

But I can't wait to get my hands on a TL-10 fusion+ reactor, or anti-grav 
thrusters, which are now *way* to cheap, imho. (Suffice it to say, I'll 
be multiplying anti-grav prices by 10 in my campaign).

Let us not forget Jump Drives.

These technologies aren't even thinkable now at our supposed TL-8 or so 
society, so I'd say certain Traveller areas are quite magical.

I do agree with the point that some Traveller technologies are "big 
steel" or "clunky"/70's compared to recent Sci-Fi or actual scientific 
discoveries.

I have a feeling in 10 or 20 years we'll look back on some cybertech and 
VR science fiction in the same "quaint" light.



===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 14:14:22 
From: dadams@tig.com.au
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

** Reply to note from Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net> Thu, 10 Apr 1997 15:14:34 -0700 (PDT) 
>    
> > Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 17:38:50 +0200 (METDST) 
> > From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk> 
> >  
> > Leonard Erickson writes: 
> > >>Just because the limited ship combat systems for traveller don't  
> > >> address it doesn't mean that there wouldn't be ECM and ECCM to help  
> > >>ships avoid detection at higher tech levels. 
> > >  
> > >Only if you repeal a bunch of the laws of physics. 
> >  
> > Leonard, you're making (what I think is) a big mistake here. You're taking 
> > it for granted that the Traveller Universe works the same way the real  
> > universe works. Let me let you in on a secret. It dosen't. 
>    
> It's in *everyone*'s best interests to make Trav reality match the 
> physical universe as closely as possible, minimizing hand-waved 
> exceptions.  The reason can be expressed as the Law of Unintended 
> Consequences:  "Every action taken to achieve a goal will also achieve 
> one or more unintended consequences, which may directly or indirectly 
> interfere with that goal, or cause greater harm elsewhere." 
 
 
No No No No No. I repeat NO. 
 
Dont lock us in to a universe where we can not do what we want, just because the laws of 
physics. 
 
Take Babylon 5. While it is the most realistic show on tv, it has things which are impossable. 
Like instant full duplex interstellar communications, batteries that fit in the hand that 
can heat materials to plasma. Not to mention jump drives. 
 
The reason for this is for the telling of the story. The story is king in RPG, the science is 
a handle, a plot device that allows the story to flow.  
 
Why cant I have a wooden ship? Howard Chaykin did in "Ironwolf", and Tenchi Muyo has them as 
well. Why cant I have a fighter that takes out a capital ship? Babylon 5 and Star Wars does. 
Why cant I have artificial uturine replicators and bringing people back from the dead like 
Lous McMasters Bujold does? 
 
I want to tell a story, and the strong thing about traveller is not the technolagy (which 
always sucked, but is changing with Gods own Games Designer Greg Porter), not the science 
(which has not always been great but it was workable), but the rich and detailed background.  
 
If realism disallows something that I want in my story, F**K realism! Science Fiction has two 
parts ... the science AND fiction. If someone says that it cant work , invent some bullsh*tium 
to justify it, like jump drives! (Jump drives are a plot device , and should be treated as 
such!!!!) 
 
Rember the first law of gaming : keep the punters enertained. 
 
BTW Craig, this is not a spray at you, it is at the gearheads in general. If you take offense, 
my appolagies are offered. 
 
 
 
 
 

Darryl Adams		dadams@tig.com.au 
 

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 97 22:01:31 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Fighters: Stack them Compensators!

On 04/09/97 at 10:25 PM,  Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com> said:

> Stacking g-comp is a serious violation of traveller canon.  Yeah, I hate
> to be the super canon cop, but if you allow this, toss all traveller
> naval history out the window.  It also breaks all published ship designs
> since any military ship that *doesn't* do this (if allowed) is toast.

Hate that stinking canon! ;->

I can't say I'm too enthused with the idea of "stacking g-compensators"
either, but it's an *optional* rule so folks get to do it or not as they
see fit.  I *like* options!

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 97 22:51:48 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Optional G-Comp Stacking

On 04/10/97 at 09:39 AM,  Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org> said:

> Want 9G compensation at TL-12? Simple. Multiply 3G compensator volume by
> 3. Envelop pilot's area (2 cu. m or so). Pay through the nose. Remember:
> The structure must be designed to handle the desired G's.

>     Comp. Vol. = ( Desired G Comp. / Max. G Comp ) ^ 3 * Std. Vol.

Bill, just a little more than multiply by 3. <g>  At TL12 getting 9g would
be:   (9/3)^3 = 3^3 = 27 * the required volume, mass, power and cost.


Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 97 21:54:32 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: The Half-Die

On 04/10/97 at 07:25 AM,  jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay) said:

> > Shucks if we're going to have d3's, let's go ahead and have d10, and d20's
> > too!

> Ever see a d7?  And, no, I'm not talking in Star Trek terminology :)

Nope, can't say I have.  Are d7's "fair die"?

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 97 22:03:55 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: CSC Armor?

On 04/09/97 at 10:27 PM,  eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch) said:

> Going from cm to AV you'd do:  

>     AV = (armor thickness in cm)^(1/3) * (Material Toughness)

> Going from AV to cm you'd rearrange the formula to be:

>     (armor in cm) = (AV / (Material Toughness))^3

Greg Porter informed me in private email that the formuli above are
accurate.  So, now we can build our armor walls. <g>

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 97 22:33:16 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: CSC Armor?

On 04/10/97 at 02:09 AM,  "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com> said:

> I've been trying to use the CSC codes to come up with  T4
> armor values for the TNE/MT/CT armors that are not printed in the  T4
> books.

> I'm having a tough time of it, though.  The CSC was written for 
> vehicles, and my guesses for how thick TL 14 Combat Armor (circa  1105)
> are not very good.

> You thinking on this matter may help me too.  I'll try to plug in the 
> values backwards as you have suggested.  Maybe I'll come up with 
> something.  The true test is to backwards work some T4 armor and  compare
> the AV I get with the true T4 AV printed in the book.

I heard from Greg today, saying the formuli "look good" to him.  But, I'm
working on new stuff, not converting things from older designs, so I don't
know if there's some sort of trick to conversions.  I'd guess there is,
though. 

The TNE(FFS)/MT/CT AV's *certainly* don't directly correspond with T4 or
CSC. The ship design systems correspond, behind the scenes, with FFS, but
the conversion to USP armor depends on a table. The VDS in CSC has
different formuli and different assumptions from FFS in several cases, so
VDS doesn't match up too well with the ship design systems.  I feel we
*really* need a uniform design system. It could be an updated FFS, an
expanded VDS, or a different system that compasses them both. 

Let me know what you come up with, OK?

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 16:21:04 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Solomani Rim Steller Objects?

Has anyone (anyone at all:) created any info for any system withing the
solomani rim?  In particular im after planet names/UPP within each system,
like Earth for Sol.  I have info for Sol, but no other system.

I have a mstare list of every system within the Rim, but it has a UPP for
the primary planet in the system and Assumes the primary world has the
same name as the system sun.

Thanks.

SaHua,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


"Describing the Internet as the Network of Networks is like calling
the Space Shuttle, a thing that flies"
  - John Lester of Mass. General Hospital (from his email signature 
file). 

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 01:12:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: VolantZep@aol.com
Subject: pilots and training

Just a quick thought...

Any thought on drugs that enhance memory and learning?  You could train
pilots in basics very quickly since most of it is rote memorization of
procedure and systems.  Then a crash course in "know your enemy" to learn
strengths and weaknesses of known combatants.  The hands-on part could be
drastically reduced.  They will be green to combat until they actaully get
into it, no matter how long the training program.

What does this have to do with game mechanics?  Don't ask me, I just work
here... ;-)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 15:17:45 +1000
From: Jason Anderson <midnight@kagi.com>
Subject: Re: KBv2.0 & Experience

>If I do follow correctly, you're saying that (like you said, insert a
>method for xp advancement here) after you get an increase, it really
>doesn't effect your chances of success until you get three such
>increases.
>
>At that point, the skill is advanced one level.

It sounds like what I have started using (I think, unless I am totally off
base too). What I have been doing is (using KBv2.0) is this:

The experience value is your current experience with the skill.

To increase a skill, add 1 to your experience, and then roll three dice. If
the total is above the new experience value, the PC has learnt something,
and the number becomes the new experience for that skill (I have them
record it like 2+1, which means a skill level of 2 and an experience value
of 7). If they don't roll over, they haven't learnt anything and the
skill/experience scores are unchanged.

When the experience is a multiple of 3, your skill level has increased (so
improving an experience of 8 (skill of 2+2) means you end up with a skill
level of 3).

I use the "rule of 6" when the players role the dice - ie: if they role a
six, they add it to the total and roll again. This means they can improve
their skill past level 6, although with a much reduced chance.

I was considering the use of two dice instead of 3, but (without doing any
statistics) that seemed to reduce the chance of improving skills too much.

I don't know if this is similar to what the original poster uses - I would
be interested in hearing what he does.

Cheers,
Jason

- -------
Beyond Midnight Software                               <midnight@kagi.com>
                                      <http://www.vision.net.au/~midnight>

             If it's not on fire then it's a software problem.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 23:55:18 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Missiles+Fighters

 
> Actually if CT Robots is considered canon there could be neutrino sensors a
> few kilos in mass but I'm not shure about range. The text says something
> like "detects nearby powerplants". Come to think of it wasn't there
> neutrino sensors for missiles in the Journal Missiles supplement?

Yeah, Missiles Sup. had those, I think.  The problem with neutrinos
(IMO) is background.  I just can't imagine the signal to noise being
high enough unless you were right next to the target.

Also (I've said this before, I think), if you can make a couple kilo
neutrino detector, then military ships will surround their
powerplants with these suckers pointed *inwards*.  Now my drive is
neutrino shielded (you have to be able to shield neutrinos to have a
decent directional sensor anyway, otherwise its just a geiger
counter of sorts for neutrinos).
 
- -Merrick

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 00:02:58 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Missiles+fighters II

 
> Something to notice, the missile doesn't actually need to expend fuel until
> the terminal phase of the flight. It only needs the fuel to correct for aim
> and to get a final burst of speed near the end of the flight.

Yes, exactly.
 
> Initially, the missile would have the heading and velocity of the launching
> platform, much like a tossed bomb. NOTE this will work only on a platform

Yup.

> capable of high speed runs, so not likely any capital ships using this tactic.

Wrong.  Again, traveller has always has big ships with high
g-ratings.  This means that they can get a decent velocity up, and
slow back down asquickly as any smaller craft.  Traditionally
traveller military ships always have a g-rating equal to their
g-comp for that TL.

> If an initial burst of speed is needed (like for launching from a capital
> ship), a first stage or a short fuel burn can be included to give that
> boost, adding to the initial velocity.
 
Why is the big ship moving slower than the small one?

- -Merrick

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 00:18:37 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Submarine Fighters

 
> Just a little addition: according Newtons law f=ma, rarranging it to a=f/m
> says that the force needed to accellerate an object of mass M needs to be
> much greater than the force needed to accellerate an object of mass m; so
> unless the big ship is apply a greater force to itself than that of a
> fighter then the fighter would accellerate faster. In otherwords, you need

WExcept that ships already have a g-rating.  This is the "a" above.
The force is already there!

A 6 g battleship accelrates at 6gs, as does a 6g fighter.

> powerful that the force it supplys is capable of accellerating it at
> greater speeds. In other words, it is not the point whether a figher
> accellerates faster than a big ship but which has the more powerful
> engine.

Huh?  The rating is the same, and the relative power requirements
etc. are built into the design rules.

Accleration is acceleration.  The desing trules have F/m built in
(although they assume a certain density in the simple design
systems---go over and you use the real mass value to get a).

- -Merrick

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 23:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: IR Sensors in Space

> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 14:43:15 -0600
> From: Jon Goff <jongoff@et.byu.edu>
> 
> > Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 14:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
> 
> > As for propagation drop...I really think you're seriously under- 
> > estimating just how intrinsically IR 'bright' a starship is, *by its 
> > very nature* (having fusion and livable quarters on board).  Also, 
> > remember we're talking about band-sensitive sensors -- hiding a fusion 
> > drive against a habitable planet or the corona won't work, because the 
> > spectrum will stand out like a sore thumb.
> 
> Actually, IIRC EM wave energy is inversely proportional to the square of
> the range (in meters).

Any omnidirectional radiation, acoustic, EM, whatever, drops as the
inverse square of distance.  That's the -20logR term in the signal
strength analysis I posted the other day.

> Thus even if it does stick out like a sore 
> thumb at 100km doesn't mean it does at 300,000 km.  As it is, the 
> heat level at 300,000km will be .00000011 of the energy at 100km.

'Power level' or 'signal strength' would be a better term.  And yes,
that's true.  What you don't realize is how *small* a signal you can
detect against a 'black' or dim background.  Before they stopped listening
ten days ago, the radio signal strength from Pioneer 10 was on the order
of a billionth of a trillionth (1e-21) of a watt...but they had no
difficulty listening to the signal, nor tracking the craft.

> The
> fact is that that star is hot, but it is very far away.  The fact is,
> the planet is hot--but it too is very far away.  It is the same problem
> with lasers.  The energy spreads out as the EM Wave propagates. 

Yes, of course, but not enough to matter in this analysis, at the ranges
and conditions under discussion.

> > Having made my living off sensors for a number of years (not any more,
> > though), I hope you'll trust that I'm giving you the straight dope 
> > here.
> 
> Sorry if I sounded snotty, I just thought your response to that one guy
> was a bit rude.

Dear me, didn't intend to be rude to anyone -- are you sure you have the
right person?

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 23:48:58 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Skill Aptitudes (dedicated to Eris Reddoch)

This post is dedicated to Eris Reddoch.

The original Heritic and I have had several conversations in the past 
on using Aptitudes with the Traveller task system.  Since I have 
finalized KBv2.0, I thought that some would be interested in adding 
detail to their task system.

These rules here will discuss skill aptitudes with the KBv2.0 task 
system.  I also want to add that Eris has developed his own task 
system, and if you want a system that goes into even more detail 
about skill aptitude, you should contact him for a copy of his 
system.

I, personally, don't use (or even recommend) aptitudes in my game.  I 
believe that a person's aptitude to do a certain task are adequately 
addressed with the skill and attribute components of the target 
number in the Traveller system as it stands (here, I'm talking about 
all three systems--Book 1's, Marc's fix, and KBv2.0).

But, the idea of aptitudes does intrigue me, so if any of you want to 
use it in your game, here's how aptitudes can easily be implemented 
using KBv2.0.

You can consider these rules/thoughts a variant to KBv2.0.
===============================================================



APTITUDES (KBv2.0 Variant)

These rules (I should say rule-ideas because they are not finalized, 
and I encourage GMs to sculpt them into whatever system best suits 
their game) will add some complexity to KBv2.0, but not much.

What is an aptitude?

Aptitude referrs to an idividual's ability to do well at different 
tasks.  Let's say a character has a high Dex.  In the game, that high 
Dex will boost the character's ability to do many varied tasks BY THE 
SAME AMOUNT when the several tasks for which Dex is used as the base 
characteristic.

Confused?

Let me try to clear that up.  Dex is the base characteristic for 
several skills--three varied examples are Piloting, Gun Combat, and 
Dancing.  Let's say that a character has been introduced to all 
three of these skills before and has an rudimentary knowledge of 
all three.  In game terms, the character would have a skill-1 in 
all three areas.  Given this, the character has the same chance of 
success with each of the three skills even though they are all quite 
different uses of Dex.

This is where aptitude steps in.  In a nutshell, aptitude 
differentiates a character's ability among different tasks using the 
same base characteristic.

Well, some say that the character's skill level does a fine job of 
doing this.  As a matter of fact, I'm one of the people who say that 
(which is why I don't use aptitude in my game).  But some can see the 
logic in paring down a character's abilities a step further.  It is 
for these types of players and GMs that aptitude is made for.



How to use Aptitude in KBv2.0.

Remember the target number calculation for KBv2.0.

                    TN = Attribute + Experience Score
     where
                    Experience Score = Skill Level x 3



Basically, that "3" used to calculate the experience score is the 
character's default aptitude.  If you want varied aptitude in your 
game, then just change this number.

To restate the experience score calculation given this, you get--

                    Experience Score = Skill Level x Aptitude*



*Note:  It is suggested that a character's aptitude be greater than 0 
and less than or equal to 3.  Aptitude numbers outside this range 
will result in either some very high or very low chances of success 
given the KBv2.0 difficulty system.

Including aptitude in your game this way will cut down on the 
complexity that most aptitude systems bring with them and ensure the 
fast pace that the KBv2.0 task system provides.

If you use the aptitude system, you will have to alter the 
character's experience score when two things happen:

1)  The character goes up in level, or
2)  The character goes up in aptitude

Just like in the regular KBv2.0 system, you should figure the 
character's experience score and write it on the character's sheet 
next to his skill for easy reference during play.

Basically, the only difference in the KBv2.0 system and the same 
system used with aptitudes is that not all of a character's skills 
will be multiplied by 3.  Some will be multiplied by lower numbers if 
the character's aptitude is not as strong in that area.

===============================================================



APTITIDE EXAMPLES

Here's two aptitude examples.  Consider these suggested ways to 
integrate the aptitude concept into your game.

Basic Aptitude example:

In the basic example, there are only three possible aptitude scores.

Aptitude          Description
- ----------          --------------
1                     Aptitude toward this skill is Low
2                     Aptitude toward this skill is Medium
3                     Aptitude toward this skill is High



Now, let's look at the example character from above.  He's got an 
average Dex-7 and three skills used in this illustration (Pilot-1, 
Rifle-1, Dancing-1).

Let's say that our character grew up in an asteroid belt, and he's 
always been good at flying.  He's so-so when it comes to firing his 
rifle, and he's lost many girlfriends because he can't dance even 
though he took a beginning class.

Under the usual (non-aptitude) T4 task systems, this character's 
chance to do any of these skills is the exact same, but when using 
aptitudes, we get a much different picture.

Using the equations I outlined above, we see that his target number 
and percentage chance to do each skill is greatly varied even though 
his Dex and skill levels stay the same.

Skill                   Aptitude          Target Number         
- -----                  -----------         ------------------
Pilot-1               3                      10
Rifle-1               2                      9
Dancing-1         1                      8


To further illustrate this example, let's say that the character had 
a skill level of 2 with each of the three skills

Skill                   Aptitude           Target Number
- -----                  -----------          ------------------
Pilot-2               3                       13
Rifle-2               2                       11
Dancing-2         1                        9




Advanced Aptitude Example

You can, if you desire, use as many aptitude levels as you like.  For 
even more varied results, try using these aptitude values.

Aptitude                 Description
- ----------                 --------------
0.5                         Very Low Apt
1                            Low Apt
1.5                         Medium-Low Apt
2                            Medium Apt
2.5                         Medium-High Apt
3                            High Apt



You can see, by plugging these numbers into the experience score 
calculation, your characters will become very individualistic with 
regard to their chances of success very fast.

Any set of numbers could be used as the aptitude range (as long as 
they are between 0 and 3).
===============================================================



XP and APTITUDES

This whole post is designed to hint at the possibilities of an 
aptitude system used with KBv2.0.

Another thing to consider is character improvement.  If you used 
aptitudes in your campaign, your players could also have 
another choice of what to spend their xp points on when it comes time 
to improve their characters.

You can use xps to improve a character's stats, his skill levels, and 
now, his aptitude score.

The possibilties with this system are vast, and you are invited to 
tweak it anyway you see fit.

If you do incorporate aptitude into your campaign, then please drop 
me a line.  Since I'm not running an aptitude system, I'd like to 
hear how it works for you.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 00:24:56 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Fighters - Revisted II

 
> Granted one hit and they die, but, when you have hundreds of the little
> buggers flying around and shooting at you then things start to even out.
> One big ship can easily be shoot down (especially if you have bigger ships
> than does it) but hundreds of tiny fighters and then the problems are sure
> to stack up against you.

No, the BB vs. BB duel is like a pistol duel with bazookas.  One of
the two ships *will* die---whoever gets hit first.

Hundreds of fighters is no big deal.  My BB (a Tigress (I'll ignore
its 300 fighters :-)) has 300 lasers or so, any one of which can
disable a fighter.  It also has 15-20,000 missiles.  Again, any one
of which eliminates a fighter.  If a fighter gets a hit, it has
hundreds of sandcasters.  If the sand is penetrated, it has meters
of armor.

> Even though Star Wars is probably a bit fantastic for this conversation,
> you should note that it was the little fighters that were able to
> penetrate the defense net of the death star and to the big ship. The big
> ships were there to offer support while the little ships went in and did
> their job.

Won't happen.  'Sides, the BB could just run away and hold the range
at will, picking the fighters off as it went.

- -Merrick

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1173
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest       Friday, April 11 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1174



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Subject: Fighters revisted
Re: IR masking
Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)
Re: Question- IR sigs for small craft
ISS Rescue Boat Design (Free Baywatch Ripoff Included!)
Joe's Task System
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Re: Low-tech space fighters
Re: The Half-Die
Beyond the [solomani] rim...
Re: CSC Armor?
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Re: IR masking.
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Re: Sensor strength analysis
Re: Subject: Fighters revisted

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 17:45:04 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Subject: Fighters revisted

On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, David J. Golden wrote:

> At 03:42 pm 04/10/97 +1000, you wrote:
> >  Also, why waste
> >space for control mechnisms and engines and fuel to get the 50g
> >propulsion?  Fill that space with High Explosives.
> 
> 	High explosives are a complete waste of money in space missiles. The bang
> you get out of the chemical explosion ain't diddly, compared to the kinetic
> energy of mass alone. 

Then they will add weight (or we will add weight) to increase the
explosive potential, or add radiation, whatever, but the space can be
better used.


Im out like bell bottom trousers,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


Basho
NO RESPITE
Feast of the Dead: but even on this day,
Smoke from the burning-ground is blown away.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 23:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: IR masking

> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 16:53:30 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Christopher Russell <russcm@zoomnet.net>
> 
> I heard recently information on how reaserch into sound waves has produced
> technology that can deaden sound by transmitting an inverse of the wave.

Cool idea, and explored humorously in one of Arthur C. Clarke's "White
Hart" stories.

> Now, taking some assuptions from what I know of physics, I have a theory
> on a way to mask IR.
>
> 1) Infrared is an electromagnetic emission.
> 
> 2) Electromagnetic energy has properties of a wave.
> 
> 3) Waves can be dampened by transmitting an inverse of the wave into the
> wave.

All true, for any *single* wave or coherent wave set (like a laser, or
(mostly) sound from a single speaker diaphragm or other vibrating object).

> So, if a ship can sense, perhaps with sensors along it's hull, it's own
> emissions, then it can transmit an inverse of the wave, perhaps with
> something similar to a radio transmitter, since radio is a type of EM
> emission, set to emit in the IR wavelength.

Such an emitter is called an "electric heater." :)

The problems here are many:

* You can't analyze and re-emit fast enough; by the time you know what the
wave looks like, it's already on its way to the enemy.  You can't outrace
the wave signalling ahead to a later emitter, either.

* Your hull is not a coherent source; the IR coming off it will be
nonpolarized and out of phase, so no one signal could counter it.

* Even if you could, doing so from an extended source would create a
chaotic web of maxima and minima rather than a simple overall damping.

* Finally, the clincher, though I've left it for last as it's hardest to
explain.  Owing to the nature of entropy, the process of gathering data
and correlating the signals would generate *more* heat than you
"canceled".  Ouch.  Gotta hate that Second Law...

Speaking of which, my favorite formulation of the Three Laws of
Thermodynamics:

  1. You can't win.
  2. You can't break even.
  3. You can't quit the game.

Sorry, just had to share that. :)

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 08:55:24 +0200
From: Per Bernhardsson <bard@ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)

Christopher Russell wrote:

I just had to repy on this one...

> The IRS's problem is that it is still using machines that do not have any
> sort of parallel processing, and likely are still runing under 25mhz.

I doubt that, the Swedish version of IRS (RSV) use some type of mainfram
I've heard some rumor of a Cray but I doubt that, but anyway the amount
of information these institutions process is huge, as they have to cross
check all the references in all companies and private persons tax
declarations. Maybe not completely, since they can still be fooled, but
the ydo a lot of checking.

 / Per

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 23:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Question- IR sigs for small craft

> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 09:50:01 -0700
> From: jdconnors@genmagic.com (joel connors)
> 
> Great message, regarding the IR and detecting Starship sized targets.

Thanks very much.  If this keeps up I'll need to dig out my old sensor
books... :)

> Can you give a similar analysis for the following ship style.
> 
> A small 5-10 Grav plate driven craft with no internal life support. The
> Pilot would be using Space Battledress for his life support.

What's the power source?  If fusion, then you get results a lot like what
I posted for larger craft, only with perhaps 10% (10 db down) signal
strength.  Even with your pilot in a vacc suit, that suit has to come to
equilibrium with the pilot's 300 K innards, and the hull with the suit,
more or less (cooler at the hull, actually, but still well above 200 K for
a smallish craft).  And of course, the fusion drive spikes emissions
through the roof, just like it always does.  So, basically, you end up
with a target that's an order of magnitude or two harder to detect, but no
other major differences.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 23:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>
Subject: ISS Rescue Boat Design (Free Baywatch Ripoff Included!)

  Sometimes all it takes is one little idea and it just explodes in my
head as I work out the implications.  After working out a design for the
ISS rescue ship that _____ asked for (Sorry, deleted the file by mistake),
I started thinking about the campaign possibilities of such a setup.  In a
way, it's perfect for player characters.  There is a reason for a group to
come together for adventures (they are the crew assigned to the rescue
boat), there is a simple way to replace characters who die (the scout
service sends a replacement), there are a whole bunch of exciting recue
possibilities, as well as what the characters do on their off time, and
the GM has more control and is able to develop the background in detail
since the PCs are in one system (except for special sessions where they
are sent to another system for training/special operations/holiday).

  The more I thought about it, the more I liked the idea of a bald-faced
Baywatch ripoff.  That's right, it's "Beltwatch," the most popular
syndicated progam for Tri-V in the Imperium.  There's the ruggedly
handsome pilot trying to raise his young son in between saving the
Imperium every week, his odd subordinates, the attractive female rescue
workers who wear relic skintight vac suits that are just a size or two too
small (can't let that relic technology go to waste!), the kooky bureacrats
and evil pirates who make work such a pain for the rescue guys, and much,
much, much more.  
 
  Naturally, the rescue base is at Paradise, the pleasure and vacation
asteroid, since it's a convenient no-grav jumping-off point that makes it
easy to get everywhere else in the system (yah, sure - all the rich,
scantily clad sophonts running around had nothing to do with the ISS's
decision to locate here).  Since it's a pleasure resort and starport,
there's always an excuse for guest stars to show up (out of work washed-up
actors who need to fund another divorce), and if that's not enough, those
belters can be relied on to spice things up with a brawl or two.
  
  I'm so fired up by this idea that I've decided to run a PBEM set on
Paradise.  The game will be a bit tongue in cheek - campy like Baywatch
but true to the Traveller setting in M0.  I'll need four major characters:
pilot, doctor, engineer, and electronics specialist.  You need a skill of
3 in the primary occupation, and at least one other skill, plus some
medical skill.  Characters need to be active duty scouts (stop where you
like in character generation, as long as you are younger than 35), with an
age preferably around the mid to late 20s (audiences like that young,
firm, bouncy flesh).  Characters also need to be good guys (you can have a
dark secret in the closet, but no active Solomani agents, thank you very
much).  I'd also like some minor characters (supporting cast, if you will)
- - those characters can be whatever you like,but with the understanding
that they will not be the center of the action.  If there is enough
interest, I'll start this puppy up around May 1 (we'll need to do all
sorts of housekeeping first, as i recall from previous PBEM games I've
run.

  By the way, here is the rescue ship I came up with using QSDS.  It uses
6G Heplar drives to get there fast and cheaply, as well as operate outside
the 1000D space for rescue.  There is a four bed sickbay, space for 8
casualties in emergency low, and cargo for recue supplies and such.
Of course it comes from Generica Starships - who else?


Generica type 8125 Scout Rescue Boat

Tons: 100 STD (Wedge A)		Cost: 62.18 MCr
Crew: 4			High/Mid Pass: 0		Low: 8
Cargo 16 STD		Controls: Std. Civilian		TL: 12

08 Size			0 Jump Drive
			6 Manuever (HEPLar, 60 Hours)
			500 MW Power Plant
			25 Fuel (Scoop 40, Refine 0=
			0 Meson Screen
			0 Sandcaster
			0 Nuclear Damper
			A2 P3 J0 Sensors
			20 Armor, 10 Structure

Crew: 1 Engineer, I Pilot, I Electronics, 1 Medical*

* Ship can be operated by one person

Notes:
  There are four bunks for the crew.  Life support is provided in the
cargo bay so that persons rescued can be kept temporarily.

______________________________
Dr. Mark Clark
Oregon Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 03:18:30 -0400
From: 34zbtxq@cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu (Susan M. Shock)
Subject: Joe's Task System

>Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:22:21 -0500 (CDT)
>From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
>Subject: Task System
>
>The Lighter Side of the Task System Debate
>==========================================
(MAJOR SNIPPAGE)

>Feeback appreciated!

Joe,

        ROFLMBO!!!!

Allen

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 09:12:04 +0200
From: Per Bernhardsson <bard@ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

Paul D. Owensby wrote:
> 
> >TL12-15 computers definitely won't have any keyboards
> 
> Oh? and what do you suggest using for imput in crowded starport lounges
> or in lecture halls where you don't want to disturb/be overheard by others?
> Pens? I can type a lot faster than I can write, and with less strain. I won't
> even mention legibility... :)

How about touch screens (Star Trek style) and perhaps even holographic
keyboards. It's not something we would get used too very quickly, but it
might work. Come to think of it solid holographic keyboards (Star Trek
holodeck). Another way to fix the problem with being overheard is some
type of security field that blocks of your little cubicle from in/out
going sounds.

 / Per

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 09:15:00 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Low-tech space fighters

>And I got to wondering if it'd be possible to design the Micheal using
>Trav rules. That would shock some players.... Nuclear putt-putt
>propulsion, gamma ray lasers, 15 inch naval cannon, and anything else a
>TL8/TL/9 civilization could scrape together.

The Orion propulsion system is not neccessary (two c and two s is the
spelling right?) as we had the NERVA engine since TL-6. They actually built
it and tested it for and Isp of 1200 I think. Or you could have some really
paranoid planet that had a USA <-> Sovjet like armsrace and the orbotal
space is filled with smartpebbles, smart rocks, nuclear pumped x-ray with
shitty targetting et c.

An even more fun setting would be (I think) something on the lines of King
Davids spaceship where a really low TL plane has developed space travel.
Klunky Jules Verne space suits, perhaps a regressed asteroid culture to
avoid the problem of going to orbit at really low TL. Yank out your
Space1889 book and photocopy all equipment and other illos. Great fun.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 07:09:27 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: The Half-Die

On Thu, 10 Apr 97 21:54:32 -0500, you wrote:

> On 04/10/97 at 07:25 AM,  jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay) said:
>=20
> > > Shucks if we're going to have d3's, let's go ahead and have d10, =
and d20's
> > > too!
>=20
> > Ever see a d7?  And, no, I'm not talking in Star Trek terminology :)
>=20
> Nope, can't say I have.  Are d7's "fair die"?

"fair die"?  If you mean if they are biased or anything-- probably :)

They look kinda like the "Pentagon", only with taller walls.  The
"top" and "bottom" sides have numbers printed directly on them.  If
the die lands on one of the "walls" you end up looking at the edge of
the two opposite "walls".  Numbers are marked on either side of the
edge, much like some d4 are marked around the upmost point (as opposed
to around the base), to label the remaining five results.

Looked kinda goofy.  I guess someone made them just to prove that they
could :)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 18:35:22 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Beyond the [solomani] rim...

Whats the name of the sector "below" (away from core) the Solomani Rim (as
looking down on a 2 dimensional map:)

Thanks

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


May God be between you and harm in all the empty places you must travel
						     -Egyptian Blessing

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 09:24:58 +0200
From: Per Bernhardsson <bard@ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: CSC Armor?

Eris Reddoch wrote:
> 
> On 04/09/97 at 10:27 PM,  eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch) said:
> 
> > Going from cm to AV you'd do:
> 
> >     AV = (armor thickness in cm)^(1/3) * (Material Toughness)
> 
> > Going from AV to cm you'd rearrange the formula to be:
> 
> >     (armor in cm) = (AV / (Material Toughness))^3
> 
> Greg Porter informed me in private email that the formuli above are
> accurate.  So, now we can build our armor walls. <g>

Hmm, think about this. Let's say I want to build a wall with AV 40. I
have a material with touchness 5. Then we get the following formula:

thickness = (40/5)^/3 = 216 cm

That's quite a lot of armor! 

If I then instead use 4 separate walls of armor each with AV 10 using
the same material I get:

For one of the base walls

thickness = (10/5)^3 = 8 cm

for all 4 walls counted together that equals 32 cm, which is well... a
BIG difference.

Somehow I think those formulas are a bit strange.

 / Per

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 09:36:12 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

>I have a feeling in 10 or 20 years we'll look back on some cybertech and
>VR science fiction in the same "quaint" light.

It already feels dated and 80s. The gaming trend is also steering away from
the 3D style and towards Warcraft Command & Conquer style wargames. Bet
nobody would have predicted that when DOOM/Marathon was the most hyped.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 09:25:38 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: IR masking.

>I heard recently information on how reaserch into sound waves has produced
>technology that can deaden sound by transmitting an inverse of the wave.
>Now, taking some assuptions from what I know of physics, I have a theory
>on a way to mask IR.
>
>1) Infrared is an electromagnetic emission.
>
>2) Electromagnetic energy has properties of a wave.
>
>3) Waves can be dampened by transmitting an inverse of the wave into the
>wave.
>
>So, if a ship can sense, perhaps with sensors along it's hull, it's own
>emissions, then it can transmit an inverse of the wave, perhaps with
>something similar to a radio transmitter, since radio is a type of EM
>emission, set to emit in the IR wavelength. This would be very difficult
>to get perfect, so it would only dampen the emission, not eliminate it.
>
>This, in theory, is how EMM would work in Milenu 0. This also may be the
>founding principle on cloaking.
>
>Flames welcome.
>
>Christopher M. Russell
>russcm@zoomnet.net

Can't do that as IR emissions are random blackbody radiation while sound is
more like lasers ie single to a few different frequencies. The sound
damping you describe is regularly done on transformers to dampen the cool
50 Hz (60 in the US) hum they emit. This technique does not work on noise
however and IR emissions can be thought of as radiation noise. Also the
technique when applied to IR would break the conservation of energy law.

The following laws of physics are INMSHO not breakable by SF handwaving:
Conservation of energy
Conservation of charge
Conservation of momentum


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 09:30:05 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

>Oh? and what do you suggest using for imput in crowded starport lounges
>or in lecture halls where you don't want to disturb/be overheard by others?
>Pens? I can type a lot faster than I can write, and with less strain. I won't
>even mention legibility... :)

Pen is OK. I had a Newton that worked like crap but my US Robotics Pilot
works like a charm. I put all my Traveller notes on it and am in the
process of putting my NPC library on it so I don't have to go to the Mac
whenever I need a NPC stat during sessions. Anybody else with a Pilot that
has ideas on Traveller software for it?


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 09:33:42 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

>With computers; would people consider using a virtual realtity type matrix
>for high tech world too cyberpunkish. Though one may be crossing genres
>with this assumption, I believe that with the direction our computer
>technology is heading (even though VR is really only used for leasure at
>the moment) it would be reasonable to accept that in 2020 (when cyberpunk
>is set) that we will back a fully working VR matrix. Thus I think that it
>would be very appropriate for early stellar+ worlds to also utalise the VR
>matrix computer system.

The reason I do not believe in a VR style matrix/internet is not
technological but rather social. Who would want it except gamers, pornusers
and Cyberpunk junkies? Apple made a plug in to Netscape so you can fly
around in 3D on the web but after using it a while I trashed it as I saw no
advantage in it. XEROX Parc had some interesting ways to display complex
tree structures using 3D but otherwise I see no reason except
entertainment.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 00:39:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Sensor strength analysis

> Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 18:49:49 PST
> From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
> 
[Quote of my "decibels are your friend" post snipped]
>
> Craig, I think you've done the list (and hopefully the *game*) a great
> service with this post.

Well, thanks!  Nice to stumble into one of my areas of knowledge now and
again. :)

> With this, all we need to figure sensor stuff (other than range) is:
> 
> Passive sensors:
> 
> 1. the target's "emission profile". That's the radiated power in each
>    sensor "band" (that is in the range of wavelengths a given sensor is
>    good for).
> 2. the background's "emission profile".
> 3. the sensor's sensitivity (minimum signal it can detect, in dB)

A useful initial set of bands would be:

  Radio  Far IR  Near IR  Visible Light

Not much of tactical interest gets radiated above the VL band.

Here's what matters passively and actively at each band:

          Passive             Active

Radio     Equipment noise     Radar
          Transmissions

Far IR    Living spaces       Maser ladar
          HEPlaR exhaust

Near IR   Fusion cooling      Maser ladar
          grid
          HEPlaR exhaust

VLight    Hull reflection     Ladar
          Running lights
          Fusion cooling
          grid
          HEPlaR exhaust
          Thruster plates(?)

I mention the T-Plates as they have often been described as glowing in
visible light while in operation.

> Note that a ship *can* be detected if it is enough *below* the
> background in a given band. But that *may* require a fourth parameter
> (selectivity?).

A lot of this depends on how noisy the particular band is.  In a noisy
field (e.g., a star's corona) a hole won't show up well.  In an extremely
smooth background (e.g., the 3K cosmic background) a hole will be much
easier to spot.

> Active Sensors:
> 
> 1. the target's "reflection profile" (ie albedo in each band)
> 2. The background's emission profile.
> 3. The sensor's sensitivity.
> 4. The sensor's power.
> 5. the sensor's "focus" (ie the narrowness of the beam or lack thereof)

Both your analyses hit the nail on the head.

> This looks to me like it could be handled simply by having the sensor
> data (sensitivity for passive sensors, sensitivity, power, and focus
> for active) as part of the sensor info you record, the ship's emmision
> profile as part of the ship data, and the "backrground" emission's as
> part of the system data.

Perfect.  You'd want ship emission profiles for various fusion-plant power
output levels, to allow "playing possum" (a favorite trick) to be modeled.
Or we could skip this in the interests of simplicity.

> For *design* rules, sensitivity in each band should cost more according
> to some reasonable progression. And in some bands, it'll require bigger
> antennas.

On my list above, the farther left you go, the bigger the sensor required.
That's why it takes the Arecibo dish to get the resolution in the 1 meter
band that your eyeball gets at 500 nanometers.

> There should also be a max limit at each TL, and an
> *absolute* limit (one photon = ???? dB).

We're measuring power, not energy.  So the question is not how many dB one
photon is, but rather how many one photon/sec is.  That scale is of course
open-ended in the downward direction...0.01 photon/sec is (an average of)
1 photon every 100 seconds, and so forth.  So a TL limit makes sense, and
there will be practical limits based on noise environment like you
mentioned above, but there's not physically-imposed maximum sensitivity.

> Likewise, power takes size and money. "Focus" takes money, I don't know
> if it affects size much.

Focus does take size, but I think we're presuming that detectors and
emitters are being sized so they get within a couple magnitudes of
diffraction-limited performance.  You might allow crappy little ones to be
purchased for a discount...the "Sears telescopes" of the 57th century. :)

> Emmission control should again vary by tech level, but I think that the
> rule should be that you can't reduce your total emitted power, only
> change the band and to some extent the direction. And you can't change
> EM emissions into gravitic or neutrino emissions.

Yes, quite true.

> This fits the real world. Black paint and radar absorbent material just
> take the optical and radar emissions and turn them into heat....

Exactly!

> Oh yeah, I think communication ranges should use the same rules!

Why not?  It's the same problem in a different guise -- pulling a signal
out of noise.  It would certainly make jamming rules fall into our laps,
wouldn't it? :)

> So the bands would be something like this:

I'd forgotten you had written this when I started replying.  Let's see how
close we are on the EM bands...

> Gravitic: Mass detectors, CG detectors, Thruster plate detectors (I'm
> 	allowing for the likely idea that you can distinguish between
> 	these three things, but they are all the same basis stuff
> 	"gravity-like" radiation)

Another good thing to do with this band is look for the gravity-wave shock
caused by a mass entering or leaving jumpspace.

> Neutrino: neutrino sensors

Neutrinos come in energy bands too -- you might be able to tell different
types of fusion plants from stars, and from each other.

> Particle radiation: geiger counters, etc. Mostly useful for detecting
> 	solar flates of particle beam "near misses".

  "Warning, this is the ship's computer, all personnel are instructed to don
  standard issue lead-lined underwear.  Thank you for your cooperation." :)

> EM radiation: This should be broken down into individual bands.
> 	1. long wave (any radio that will pentrate water/gas giant
> 		atmosphere to reasonable depths)
> 	2. medium wave (any radio that will pentrate a planetary ionisphere)
> 	3. short wave (anything up to a few cm wavelength)
> 	4. radar (cm to mm wavelength)
> 	5. IR (do we need sub-bands?)
> 	6. Optical
> 	7. UV 
> 	8. X-ray/gamma ray

Pulling radio into 3 bands is fairly useful.  The band you call 'radar' is
often used for that, but 'microwave' is a more common label.  I'd think
splitting IR into far and near is a useful thing to do, just to put 300 K
and ~10,000 K sources into different buckets.  And UV+ I'm having trouble
imagining what it'd be looking for.

  Young ensign looks up from his console in the midst of battle:

  "Cap'n!  Gamma-ray burst, 312 by 24-4!"
  "Range, ensign?"
  "Uh...330 kiloparsecs.  Never mind."

You would see nuke-pumped x-ray lasers and so forth, but they'd put out
enough in visible and IR that I can't see the need to put in UV+ detectors
for them.  I'm willing to have the need for UV+ demonstrated, however.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 07:52:20 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Subject: Fighters revisted

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 12:48:38 +0930 (CST), you wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, James Lindsay wrote:
>=20
> > Why waste all the space for fighters, fighter fuel, launch tubes,
> > pilots quarters, flight deck quarters, etc. back aboard the carrier
> > when you can make far better use filling up that space with missile
> > bays and magazines?
>=20
> Okay, then were are you going to eat and sleep if your crew quarters =
have
> been ripped out to put in missile bays.=20

I said "pilots" and "flight deck" quarters, not "crew" quarters.  I
was specifically referring to all space that would have to be
dedicated to operate a ship as a carrier.

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1174
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest       Friday, April 11 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1175



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Fighters - Revisted II
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII
Experience & skill certification
Core Sector Data
Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
Re: Fighters: Stack them Compensators!
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1170
G-comp stacking
Re: CSC Armor?
Re: Task System
Re: IR Sensors in Space
Re: CSC Armor?
Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors
Re: Computer Tech
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Re: CSC Armour?
Re: Question- IR sigs for small craft
Re: IR masking
Re: IR masking.
Re: Sensor strength analysis
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 07:52:22 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Fighters - Revisted II

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 12:38:21 +0930 (CST), you wrote:

> On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, Merrick Burkhardt wrote:
>=20
> > =20
> > > I would like to just make a comment on what I think of fighters (I =
have
> > > only just subscribed to the newsgroup so I don't know what's been =
said
> > > before). I believe that to battleships, fighters can be a right =
pain in
> > > the backside.
> > > If you were a battleship capitain, what would you rather pefer: a =
head on
> > > fight with another battleship or a fight with hundreds of little =
ships
> > > that can weave in and out of your defense net. I know what I would =
prefer.
> >=20
> > The fighters.  A hit by the enemy BB is death (spinal).  The
> > fighters get killed off piecemeal, maybe do some damage here and
> > there before dying.
> >=20

> Granted one hit and they die, but, when you have hundreds of the little
> buggers flying around and shooting at you then things start to even =
out.
> One big ship can easily be shoot down (especially if you have bigger =
ships
> than does it) but hundreds of tiny fighters and then the problems are =
sure
> to stack up against you.

Too bad you weren't around over the last two weeks when this "Fighter
vs. Capital Ship" debate was raging.  I still have a copy of my final
opinion of the topic in my OutBox so I can send it to you if you want.
Don't expect a reply, though.  I'm finished with that topic for a
while :)




James W. Lindsay            Vancouver, British Columbia
     "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"

If Rice Crispies go "Snap-Crackle-Pop!", then why don't
Tootie Fruities go "Wop Bop-a-loo Bop a-Wop Bam Boom!"?

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 10:15:03 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

>> It's in *everyone*'s best interests to make Trav reality match the
>> physical universe as closely as possible, minimizing hand-waved
>> exceptions.  The reason can be expressed as the Law of Unintended
>> Consequences:  "Every action taken to achieve a goal will also achieve
>> one or more unintended consequences, which may directly or indirectly
>> interfere with that goal, or cause greater harm elsewhere."

Although one should avoid me-too-isms on mailinglists this one is an exception:

I agreee fully with the above poster.
The reson is that I play with scientifically literate people and if I made
some stupid plotdevice SF shit (HEPLAR for instance) they will find
loopholes and contradictions that make it hard for me as a ref but worst of
all their belief in the Traveller universe gets damaged and they get
plucked out into the real world and start thinking about their characters
as skillpoints, defenserolls etc instead of real living humans/aliens.

Actually RPG follows the same rules as fiction ie:
The stories/adventures has to be consistent with the genre and most people
agree Traveller is supposed to be hard SF so you're allowed to break one
law of physics but then you'll have to live with the consequences. Actually
Traveller break quite a few laws of physics but the duty of the mailing
lists is to come up with fixes or handwaves to make scientifically literate
people still believe in the universe.

The guy that wrote:
>The reason for this is for the telling of the story. The story is king in
>RPG, the science is
>a handle, a plot device that allows the story to flow.

should take a look at a great rpg in the space opera genre: It is called
Star Wars has great artwork high drama wacky science and technology and
playable rules. What it does NOT have is internal consistency but that
should be no problem; the story is king, if I want small kuddly TL 0
teddybears beat the crap out of "An entire legion of my best troops" that's
OK because my players are romantic TV-junkie morons.

Oops a little rash perhaps but I say: Those wanting to play Space Opera do
it but don't come dragging with some kind of universal law that says
science andd tech is just plot devices because that is the MAIN reason why
most movies/TV is so bad. In space opera science and tech is plotdevices
but that is one genre out of many. The reason Space Opera is so popular is
that we live in an undereducated world where most people equate science
with magic. My Traveller players have been, astronomers, programmers,
chemists, fighterpilots, cops, astrophyscists etc and I have to run a
universe that seems believable to them.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 11:45:24 +0100
From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Experience & skill certification

[Given that 3*skill level is "experience" in KBv2.0]

>> When a skill is improved through experience (insert your favourite
>> method here) the character's *experience* in that skill increases
>> by 1.  After 3 such increases, the character has attained the next
>> level of skill.
>
>If I do follow correctly, you're saying that (like you said, insert a
>method for xp advancement here) after you get an increase, it really
>doesn't effect your chances of success until you get three such
>increases.

Au contraire!  It increases your chances of success by 1 every time 
you gain from experience.  After 3 such improvements your chance of 
success is +3 higher -- the same as if you had a skill level 1 higher
than before -- and lo! it's true.  What I've done is to define skill 
level as experience/3 (round down).

On gaining the new skill level, the character may need or wish to 
obtain official certification of proficiency.  At class A and B 
starports, there are facilities capable of rating most shipboard 
skills via simulator, at a cost of Cr 1000 per level of certification 
(e.g. a pilot-3 certificate will cost Cr 3000 to test for).  Most
skills do not need certification, but medical and shipboard ones do
for employment at that skill level.  Thus, a pilot-3 certified at 
pilot-2 gains only +10% salary bonus, instead of +20% for a certified 
pilot-3 on a merchant vessel.

Note that this testing is statistical in nature, using the Imperial 
KB standard (IKBS) system to simulate a large number of tasks, the 
average success on which is compared to a skill profile.  It would 
take a spectacular failure to miss certification, IMO.

The advantage of the "incremental" experience points between skills 
is that the experience + stat profile is smooth instead of jumping 
abruptly on skill level increase.  And you can never quite quantify 
people's skills -- is this woman a newly-recertified pilot-3, or a 
very experienced (exp=11) one?

Nick
Nick Munn, University of Sheffield, Dept. of Information Studies

"Just because he is unhappy, it does not follow that he is in love."
(Horace Walpole, _The Castle of Otranto_)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 14:07:00 MET
From: "Volker A. Greimann" <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
Subject: Core Sector Data

One Question to the people who wrote M:0:
Could you maybe post the original sector data and map that you had 
planned to include in M:0? Somehow, I don't like the way that they 
are done in FS and would also rather have a Core Sector that jives 
with the information as presented in the text of M:0. 
You would be of great assistance to me and my campaign if you posted 
the data. There shouldn't be a copyright problem, since it wasn't 
published by IG and probably never will be, right? 
Thanks already,

 
Ad Astra,

V.A.G.       
- ------  Volker A. Greimann, also known as: Grei5001@uni-trier.de  ----
- -- Am Weidengraben 86,C6 - 54296 Trier - Germany - T+F: +49651148846 -
- --- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/4061 ---
- ---- Student of Law, Gamer, Illuminatus Primus, Slayer of Windows95 --
- -----  "Don't hold me up: I am just barely ahead of insanity!!!" -----

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 08:37:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: MrkGrismer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors

Leonard Erickson asks about the material for the cable on the "harpoon" for a
boarding action.

He brings up a good point, i.e. the cable has to be able to handle the stress
caused by the boardee ship's maneuver drive. This is a tons of thrust
problem, as opposed to a G problem. What exactly is the tensile strength of
the advanced materials (crystal iron, superdense, bonded coherenet, etc.)?

What would they be able to handle?

Would multiple grapnel harpoons solve this?

How many would be required?

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 15:16:35 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Fighters: Stack them Compensators!

>Also, it will become very expensive to GComp the entire ship and not just
>accel
>couches if you want to do something very important - damage control.  Stacked
>GComp works for fighter pilots strapped to their couches for the entire
>combat,
>but wouldn't allow any damage control on larger ship.
>
>-Vanya

Also the structure volume component should go up as well. To be realistic
the larger the ship the larger percentage of structure should be required
for a give G rating (square-cube law). This is the opposite of how
structure work in the rules and therefore unrealistically penalizes
fighters vs big ships.
Fighters need all the handwaving we can muster to be useful so why give
them disadvantages that are actually unrealistic?


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 15:27:06 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1170

>Just a thought, the number one reason I can think of for the Darrians
>not regaining their technology is FEAR. After the nova any study in
>technology would be shunned for hundreds of years. Even after some of
>the fear has been removed, conservativeness will impede all research.
>
>Bob

Especially in the Traveller universe where the super high tech Ancients
wiped themselves out for no apparent reason. Before the Darriansd
supplement and Secret of the ancients came out I thought the Darrians were
pushed back technologywise by the ancients that were still around but
hidden somewhere.

I bet the Darrians might have thought the same or perhaps they, like the
US, thought that they could recover without decent schools and after a few
generations became so uneducated that they no longer realised they were low
tech;)


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 10:28:00 -0400
From: Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org>
Subject: G-comp stacking

<QUOTE ON>

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 97 22:51:48 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Optional G-Comp Stacking

On 04/10/97 at 09:39 AM,  Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org> said:

> Want 9G compensation at TL-12? Simple. Multiply 3G compensator volume by
> 3. Envelop pilot's area (2 cu. m or so). Pay through the nose. Remember:
> The structure must be designed to handle the desired G's.

>     Comp. Vol. = ( Desired G Comp. / Max. G Comp ) ^ 3 * Std. Vol.

Bill, just a little more than multiply by 3. <g>  At TL12 getting 9g would
be:   (9/3)^3 = 3^3 = 27 * the required volume, mass, power and cost.

<QUOTE OFF>

Um...I didn't say this, Glenn Hope did :)
Sorry for the confusion, but I'm (unfortuneately) using Microsoft Mail at 
work, so quotes dont show up well.  This is why I make my own quote tags.

Again sorry for the confusion, hell I'm confused at work all the time! =:O

From the Commander at the office,
(wait shouldn't I be working now?)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 15:39:11 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: CSC Armor?

>> Going from cm to AV you'd do:
>
>>     AV =3D (armor thickness in cm)^(1/3) * (Material Toughness)
>
>> Going from AV to cm you'd rearrange the formula to be:
>
>>     (armor in cm) =3D (AV / (Material Toughness))^3
>
>Greg Porter informed me in private email that the formuli above are
>accurate.  So, now we can build our armor walls. <g>
>
>Eris

I'm curious to why he uses these formulae. They only make sense for
spherical explosions (HE) rounds and fits data extremely bad for KEAP and
normal bullets.
I believe they're based on WWII data when most antitank weaponry were HE or
badly made shaped charge but today or in the future=8A


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 15:35:34 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Task System

>DICE CODES
>----------
>Simple           2D2(Special Traveller coins will be minted for this purpose)
>Easy             2D4
>Routine          2D6
>Difficult        2D8
>Formidable       2D10
>Staggering       2D12
>Improbable       2D20
>Highly Unlikely  2D30
>Impossible       2D100

This to my mind was the worst task system that I've ever laid my eyes upon.
Traveller uses D6, preferrably 2D6 and nothing else. When one of
Grandfathers children started using 2D8 in his RPG tasksystem Grandfather
decided to eliminate them and started the war. When that Nilsen guy mucked
about with strange and unholy dice the Virus was spread and the third
Empire was destroyed.

All written in the same humorous vein as the above tasksystem as nobody in
ther right mind could seriously believe such an abomination might work.

Your pokerfaced lawyer of the clovenhooved.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 15:44:30 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: IR Sensors in Space

>'Power level' or 'signal strength' would be a better term.  And yes,
>that's true.  What you don't realize is how *small* a signal you can
>detect against a 'black' or dim background.  Before they stopped listening
>ten days ago, the radio signal strength from Pioneer 10 was on the order
>of a billionth of a trillionth (1e-21) of a watt...but they had no
>difficulty listening to the signal, nor tracking the craft.

Yes, yes! Give me more of those facts. This 1e-21 watts was received by
what antenna? What area did it have. It would also be interesting to know
what noise temperature the amps had if that's the right term. Does anybody
know what the IRAS sattelites sensitivity was?

Any figures will do.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 15:52:01 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: CSC Armor?

>Hmm, think about this. Let's say I want to build a wall with AV 40. I
>have a material with touchness 5. Then we get the following formula:
>
>thickness = (40/5)^/3 = 216 cm
>
>That's quite a lot of armor!
>
>If I then instead use 4 separate walls of armor each with AV 10 using
>the same material I get:
>
>For one of the base walls
>
>thickness = (10/5)^3 = 8 cm
>
>for all 4 walls counted together that equals 32 cm, which is well... a
>BIG difference.
>
>Somehow I think those formulas are a bit strange.
>
> / Per

Assuming of course that you can add AV figures which the above formula
proves you cannot. I think your preconceived assumtions are a bit strange,
no offense meant however (he said donning his asbestos underwear).


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 15:57:47 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Boarding Action, matching vectors

>He brings up a good point, i.e. the cable has to be able to handle the stress
>caused by the boardee ship's maneuver drive. This is a tons of thrust
>problem, as opposed to a G problem. What exactly is the tensile strength of
>the advanced materials (crystal iron, superdense, bonded coherenet, etc.)?
>
>What would they be able to handle?
>
>Would multiple grapnel harpoons solve this?
>
>How many would be required?

The G problem is also a tons of stress per square meter problem. One think
that has bothered med (until I fixed it in my own design system) is the
implied equality between tensile strength and armour toughness. They're no
at all the same and at high impact velocites tougness is more or less
equated to density.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 10:54:00 -0400
From: Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org>
Subject: Re: Computer Tech

Greetings!

I just wanted to jump into the computer thread and post some of what I 
believe computers are like in trav.  This is based on speculation and what i 
think would be "cool' for my players.  Im going town the TL list starting 
with the 1980's

TL-7 Basic machines, Apple II's Commodore 64's etc...

TL-8 Late 1980's. 80x86 line etc...  Apearence of portable computers and 
CD-Roms.

TL-9 This is where we are today, Pentiums, primative VR. Global Data Net, 
DVD's etc...

TL-10 This is where you could be cyperpunk if you want, I dont.  Wearable 
computing systems (HUD and pocket CPU). Satalite comm network, workable VR 
ware, smaller optical storage devices, primative datacrystals. Star Trek:TNG 
Stlye"Dynamic controls"  where you can reconfig the board to match your 
style of input.

TL-11&12 the computer systems get smaller, and so do the datacrystals. 
 Everything looks very Star Trek-ish (2-D touchboards, Traveller's "Dynamic 
Controls") portable computers are now hand held datapads, the portable CPU's 
are now pocket size instad of paperback size.  Optics are so miniturised 
that a spycam could be anywhere and is!
Computer controll of almost everything, Road-Grid for example.  VR is still 
used for some applications, but experiments in VR and holograms develop 
the...

TL-13 Holographic displays with tactile feedback, kinda a 3d touch screen, 
no need for VR gloves and HUD's.

later TL's develop the Meson comm-net, no need for satalites, data is 
directly passed though the planet to the reciever, faster load times.

I know that technicaly the TL for late 20th century Earth is 8, mind you 
this is an average.  I beleive that the computer technology we have today 
that is top of line has broken through to TL-9 already.

Comments, suggestions, thoughts...
(The Commander gets out his flame retardant suit and fire extinguisher...) 
:)

The Commander at the office,
(groan...It's a living!)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 01:53:54 +1200
From: Rupert Boleyn <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

At 22:01 10/04/97 -0600, you wrote:
>In a message dated 1997-04-09 14:57, John R. Snead wrote:
>
>>The farm worlds and factory worlds set up of Traveller simply doesn't make
>>sense in light of 90s technology.  With CSC and EA the actual technology
>>in the game is getting better (though its still too conservative) but the
>>social changes produced by these technologies are largely ignored. 
>
>Conservative!? Sheesh. Maybe in some disciplines.
>
>But I can't wait to get my hands on a TL-10 fusion+ reactor, or anti-grav 
>thrusters, which are now *way* to cheap, imho. (Suffice it to say, I'll 
>be multiplying anti-grav prices by 10 in my campaign).
>
>Let us not forget Jump Drives.
>
>These technologies aren't even thinkable now at our supposed TL-8 or so 
>society, so I'd say certain Traveller areas are quite magical.
>
>I do agree with the point that some Traveller technologies are "big 
>steel" or "clunky"/70's compared to recent Sci-Fi or actual scientific 
>discoveries.
>
>I have a feeling in 10 or 20 years we'll look back on some cybertech and 
>VR science fiction in the same "quaint" light.
>
While it's no answer in the official Traveller timeline (as it extends from
our current state of affairs), I've always used the premise that cultures
with the relatively chaep intersteller flight of Traveller would have plenty
of space and resources, and thus wouldn't have the worship of minaturization
that the modern western world has.

R. Boleyn

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 10:11:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ethan Henry <ehenry@mag1.magmacom.com>
Subject: Re: CSC Armour?

> From: Per Bernhardsson <bard@ludd.luth.se>
> Subject: Re: CSC Armor?
> 
> Hmm, think about this. Let's say I want to build a wall with AV 40. I
> have a material with touchness 5. Then we get the following formula:
> 
> thickness = (40/5)^/3 = 216 cm
> 
> That's quite a lot of armor! 
> 
> If I then instead use 4 separate walls of armor each with AV 10 using
> the same material I get:
> 
> For one of the base walls
> 
> thickness = (10/5)^3 = 8 cm
> 
> for all 4 walls counted together that equals 32 cm, which is well... a
> BIG difference.
> 
> Somehow I think those formulas are a bit strange.

Have you read CSC? Greg Porter explicitly staes that you don't
just add up AVs for layered armour and that you have to know
the total thickness of all layers to calculate the composite AV.

The relationship between thickness and AV is non-linear, so don't
expect to be able to add AVs. Under most circumstances, you just take
the highest AV of all the layers and use that value. ie. guy in body
armor in a tank uses just the tank's AV. If a bullet gets through the tank,
it'll probably get through the body armour.

Ethan
- -- 
ehenry@magma.ca                                  http://www.magma.ca/~ehenry

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 15:48:29 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Question- IR sigs for small craft

>Thanks very much.  If this keeps up I'll need to dig out my old sensor
>books... :)
>
Please do and find us some ballpark sensitivity figures.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 02:20:57 +1200
From: Rupert Boleyn <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
Subject: Re: IR masking

At 23:28 10/04/97 -0700, you wrote:

>Speaking of which, my favorite formulation of the Three Laws of
>Thermodynamics:
>
>  1. You can't win.
>  2. You can't break even.
>  3. You can't quit the game.
>
>Sorry, just had to share that. :)

I always liked:

1/ You can't win.

2/ You can't break even either.

3/ You can't even lose decently.

R. Boleyn

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 02:21:01 +1200
From: Rupert Boleyn <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
Subject: Re: IR masking.

At 09:25 11/04/97 +0100, you wrote:

>
>The following laws of physics are INMSHO not breakable by SF handwaving:
>Conservation of energy
>Conservation of charge
>Conservation of momentum
>
If the law of Conservation of Momentum isn't broken in T4 then how do
thrusters work? I thought that FF&S did away with them for this very reason.

I ask this as an honest question, as I'm not up on T4 at all. 

R. Boleyn
TNE to the Grave!

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 02:21:04 +1200
From: Rupert Boleyn <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Sensor strength analysis

At 00:39 11/04/97 -0700, you wrote:

Much snipping

>> EM radiation: This should be broken down into individual bands.
>> 	1. long wave (any radio that will pentrate water/gas giant
>> 		atmosphere to reasonable depths)
>> 	2. medium wave (any radio that will pentrate a planetary ionisphere)
>> 	3. short wave (anything up to a few cm wavelength)
>> 	4. radar (cm to mm wavelength)
>> 	5. IR (do we need sub-bands?)
>> 	6. Optical
>> 	7. UV 
>> 	8. X-ray/gamma ray
>
>Pulling radio into 3 bands is fairly useful.  The band you call 'radar' is
>often used for that, but 'microwave' is a more common label.  I'd think
>splitting IR into far and near is a useful thing to do, just to put 300 K
>and ~10,000 K sources into different buckets.  And UV+ I'm having trouble
>imagining what it'd be looking for.
>
>  Young ensign looks up from his console in the midst of battle:
>
>  "Cap'n!  Gamma-ray burst, 312 by 24-4!"
>  "Range, ensign?"
>  "Uh...330 kiloparsecs.  Never mind."
>
>You would see nuke-pumped x-ray lasers and so forth, but they'd put out
>enough in visible and IR that I can't see the need to put in UV+ detectors
>for them.  I'm willing to have the need for UV+ demonstrated, however.
>
How about for ladar detection? If I knew no one had UV sensors, I'd use UV
lasers for all my Ladar, beam pointers, etc.

Likewise perhaps to detect near misses by UV+ lasers (assuming they scatter
suffiently).

R. Boleyn

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 08:35:01 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

Per Bernhardsson wrote:
> 
> Paul D. Owensby wrote:
> >
> > >TL12-15 computers definitely won't have any keyboards
> >
> > Oh? and what do you suggest using for imput in crowded starport lounges
> > or in lecture halls where you don't want to disturb/be overheard by others?
> > Pens? I can type a lot faster than I can write, and with less strain. I won't
> > even mention legibility... :)
> 
> How about touch screens (Star Trek style) and perhaps even holographic
> keyboards. It's not something we would get used too very quickly, but it
> might work. Come to think of it solid holographic keyboards (Star Trek
> holodeck). Another way to fix the problem with being overheard is some
> type of security field that blocks of your little cubicle from in/out
> going sounds.
> 
>  / Per

Something that just occurred to me: the problem with VR today is
that you have to wear special gloves so the the computer can detect
your movement. I don't think it's unreasonable to presume that by
TL 12+, the computer will have sufficiently complex sensors to 
detect your motions without having you wear anything.

If so, then the keyboard-less society becomes reality because you
just point or gesture and the system'll pick up what you mean.

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1175
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest       Friday, April 11 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1176



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Back Issues//Archives
Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Stellar objects in Solomani Rim
Re: Fighters BB Killing Weapons
Re: Boarding Actions
Re: Yet more Pigeons
Re: EA et al...
Re: Sensor strength analysis
Re: Low-tech space fighters (4th ATTEMPT -- is this thing broken?)
Re: ECM Decoys
Re: Missiles+fighters II
Re: What to Call M:0 RICE/BARD Papers?
Re: Missiles+Fighters
Re: IR masking
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Re: Fighters BB Killing Weapons
Re[2]: Emperor's Arsenal
Re: Computer Tech

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 09:44:06 -0600
From: Eric Holmes <holmes_eric_t@lanl.gov>
Subject: Back Issues//Archives

Server went down last night until 9:90 CDT.

Is there anyway to review an archive of TNL???

Eric

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 08:17:02 -0700
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)

At 08:55 AM 4/11/97 +0200, Per Bernhardsson wrote:
>Christopher Russell wrote:
>
>I just had to repy on this one...
>
>> The IRS's problem is that it is still using machines that do not have any
>> sort of parallel processing, and likely are still runing under 25mhz.

Most US government programming is done in Cobol and ADA.  According to one
GAO study, less than 25% of all programming contracted for the US
government is used (the rest is deemed unusable on delivery, and yet is
still paid for).  In this study, the _only_ program used as delivered was a
pre-compiler that did not have significant user or database interactivity.  

And supposedly, the computers on the Shuttle are still using ferrite core
memory.  Supposedly each of the computers is less powerful than a 386.
Anyone know for certain?

- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 08:33:56 -0700
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

At 10:15 AM 4/11/97 +0100, Anders Backman wrote:
>>> It's in *everyone*'s best interests to make Trav reality match the
>>> physical universe as closely as possible, minimizing hand-waved
>>> exceptions.  The reason can be expressed as the Law of Unintended
>>> Consequences:  "Every action taken to achieve a goal will also achieve
>>> one or more unintended consequences, which may directly or indirectly
>>> interfere with that goal, or cause greater harm elsewhere."

Given this, why does T4 persist in using a 2D map for sectors?  I know, I
know, it supposed to be just an abstraction.  Still...


- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 08:33:46 -0700
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

At 09:36 AM 4/11/97 +0100, Anders Backman wrote:
>>I have a feeling in 10 or 20 years we'll look back on some cybertech and
>>VR science fiction in the same "quaint" light.
>
>It already feels dated and 80s. The gaming trend is also steering away from
>the 3D style and towards Warcraft Command & Conquer style wargames. Bet
>nobody would have predicted that when DOOM/Marathon was the most hyped.

I work in this industry, and this is not correct.  From the quantity point
of view, there are more first-person 3D games than ever.  From the quality
point of view, a _few_ of these are doing good things (my own game,
Meridian 59, was the first first-person graphical MUD out there), and more
are on the way.  Third-person games will always be around because they're
faster, cheaper, and easier to make, but neither the demand nor the supply
of VR-like games is drying up.  OTOH, we can all be thankful that not all
VR-like games are going to be Doom-clones.  I think we've all had about
enough of that (well, excepting the folks at id, I guess).  

- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 08:33:51 -0700
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

At 09:33 AM 4/11/97 +0100, Anders Backman wrote:
>The reason I do not believe in a VR style matrix/internet is not
>technological but rather social. Who would want it except gamers, pornusers
>and Cyberpunk junkies? Apple made a plug in to Netscape so you can fly
>around in 3D on the web but after using it a while I trashed it as I saw no
>advantage in it. XEROX Parc had some interesting ways to display complex
>tree structures using 3D but otherwise I see no reason except
>entertainment.

Entertainment typcially leads the rest of the computer industry by 10-20
years.  This has been true since at least the early 1970s (before there was
much of a computer industry!).  There are excellent Darwinian reasons for
this that I'll go into if anyone is really interested (it's pretty much
off-topic).   

Business apps using 3D, VR-like interfaces will become commone when the
information density is high enough to make 2D too limiting, and when there
is a real need to be able to interact with others in the same virtual
space.  It won't happen just because it's cool.  Still, we're within five
years (easily) of this happening in sectors like news gathering, financial
information and trading, and resource planning among others.  

- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 03:43:19 +1200
From: Rupert Boleyn <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

At 08:35 11/04/97 -0600, you wrote:

>Something that just occurred to me: the problem with VR today is
>that you have to wear special gloves so the the computer can detect
>your movement. I don't think it's unreasonable to presume that by
>TL 12+, the computer will have sufficiently complex sensors to 
>detect your motions without having you wear anything.
>
>If so, then the keyboard-less society becomes reality because you
>just point or gesture and the system'll pick up what you mean.
>
I that case we'd better hope the genengineering is up to making OOS (RSI for
'80's retros) resistant people :) Try pretend typing with no solid surface
for a while.

R. Boleyn

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 17:46:11 +0200
From: "Mark Seemann" <mark@dk-online.dk>
Subject: Stellar objects in Solomani Rim

11/4-97 Solomani wrote:

> Has anyone (anyone at all:) created any info for any system withing the
> solomani rim?  In particular im after planet names/UPP within each
system,
> like Earth for Sol.  I have info for Sol, but no other system.
> 
> I have a mstare list of every system within the Rim, but it has a UPP for
> the primary planet in the system and Assumes the primary world has the
> same name as the system sun.

No, usually the system takes it's name after the mainworld. I.e. the Terra
system takes it's name after Terra, but the star is called Sol.

Traveller Alien module 6 'Solomani' has a World Index on pages 28-29 which
amongst other things lists a lot of stars and in what hex they are placed
in the Solomani Rim.

Mark Seemann
mark@dk-online.dk
http://www2.dk-online.dk/users/Mark_Seemann

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 00:20:01 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Fighters BB Killing Weapons

In mail you write:

> Actually, if tech level is the same as it has been in the last three
> Traveller incarnations, Antimatter is at least a tech 16 development. Even
> today, we can barely produce enough to learn about some of it's properties,
> but we cannot produce enough to be of significantce (perhaps one or two
> particals at most). If one takes the past trends in partical physics as any
> clue, we aren't going to see practical antimatter uses for thousands of
> years, baring any more dark ages.

We are producing and *storing* multiple *thousands* of anti-protons
currently. And plans are underway for building dedicated antimatter
production facilities. Sure, it's hideously expensive, But it is the
single *best* power storage medium known. The military is *very*
interested. 

For example, if we come up with good enough storage designs, that 1000
g missile can be built using an antimatter rocket engine. And it'll be
*nasty*. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 00:27:47 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Boarding Actions

In mail you write:

> Yeah, that is the problem... the main problem is (of course) thus:
>
> Ship A (Attacker) takes out the Thrusters on Ship B (Being Borded).
> But if Ship B still has altitude jets, it can start spinning on
> multiple axes which make it impossible to board. Hm...
>
> One thing you might do is send over a couple of guys in EVA suits who
> would:
>
> first, get close the the ship and try to find a spot where they could
> get onto the hull withough getting destroyed. Probably a man-portable
> grapple would be good, because as soon as it hits it'll jerk the guy into
> motion and he can reel it in to get onto the hull (assuming the guy is
> ~200 kg with suit, grapple, et al, you should be able to get cable tough
> enough to handle a couple Gs of pull, for a short time period).
> OK, so now one or two boarders are on the hull. Here's the tough part -
> they have to plug up Ship B's altitude jets and plant a big altitude jet
> of their own on the hull to counter Ship B's spin and get it so that
> ship A can come alongside and fire off the real boarding party.
>
> Now, that's not going to be easy. But it would probably make for good
> gaming...

If you can pull that off, it's *just* as easy to lay alongside with a
ship's boat, and have the boarders "jump" over to the ship. A few
cutting charges will gain access to the inside, and away we go. Still
good gaming. Especially if the ship being boarded has boobytrapped the
hull, or deploys defenders on the hull.

Heck, it just occured to me that the "easy" way is to try to get close,
and then activate an *externally* mounted grav plate on the ship's
boat. That'll "drag" the boat along until it matches the ship's spin. 
It'll take *good* piloting, but not unreasonably so.

At lower tech levels a magnet will do it. Yes, even if the hull is
something like aluminum or titanium. It has to do with the motion thru
the mag field inducing currents in the hull. So in this case, it won't
drag you *to* the ship, but it will let the ship's spin drag you along!

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 01:19:44 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Yet more Pigeons

In mail you write:

>         Let's see... Pigeon guidance was being implemented in order to
> guide what?  Blind people?  Little old ladies?  High explosive warheads
> whose sole reason for existence was killing large numbers of people in an
> unpleasant fashion and causing massive property damage?
>
>         And they drew the lines at blowing up pigeons?!

Sure. According to the theory behind this sort of thing, the people
have a choice. The pigeons don't.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 00:55:34 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: EA et al...

In mail you write:

> And... add my vote to the "No more Chris Foss art" cabal.  I _like_ the
> look of it, but it'd be difficult to get art where the style was further
> from Traveller without putting cute unicorns or something in it.  I think
> players want somethign that they could conceivably say "yeah, we went
> _there_ in _that_ ship!"

In re: "cute unicorns".

These are part of an ongoing Hiver manipulation to make Terrans loath
equinoid lifeforms on sight. They're trying to prepare us for meeting
the K'kree.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 22:45:09 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Sensor strength analysis

In mail you write:

> I've been using such a system (and posted it to the list) for about 5
> years now. Give each sensor type (optical,radar,mass,neutrino) a factor,
> give each ship a profile with factors for (optical, radar, mass,
> neutrino) and some rules for it. The total lack of interest in my system
> last time I posted it reduced my interest in writing it for the list (I
> use my own design system etc so some modifications has to be made) but
> I'll repost it if there's any interest.

I think that when it was posted last time, we didn't have the right
context for it. Now we do.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 02:21:28 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Low-tech space fighters (4th ATTEMPT -- is this thing broken?)

In mail you write:

> On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Grandfather wrote:
>
> Sounds like a winning "Space above and beyond":)
>
> I like the plot.
>
> A point on lifesupport, youd have just an effective fighter command if you
> ditched lifesuport (for more alien-scum-killing-weaponry) and each pilot
> has a vacc suite.

Yes, but the air supply would be the *same* size, and the
heating/cooling needs won't change *that* much. The pilot will be in a
suit anyway, but it doesn't really cost enough more to worry about to
pressurize the cockpit. If the cockpit takes a hit, he can close his
helmet and still use the fighter's life support. He needs to save the
LS pack of his suit in case he has to eject. He may be floating in
space for *hours* before he's picked up! Maybe even a day or so.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 01:45:19 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: ECM Decoys

In mail you write:

> That's why a warship will have deployable decoys and drones that radiate
> the proper frequencies, along with EM jamming, sand casting and everything
> else you can come up with.  If they're good enough they'll be able to spoof
> off some missiles.  You'd probably communicate with them with narrow band
> maser so they could be controlled and their ECM could be constantly
> updated.  They'd have to be powered to keep up with the ship and match her
> maneuvers.  Expensive? You bet! 

You just gave me a *new* idea regarding sand. Part of it's function is
to obscure the ship's position. It gets ejected *hot*. And any of it
hit by laser fire will cool as slowly as possible from the obscuring
temp ranges (ie high emissivity until it hits the temp band the
radiators work at and low emissity while in that band). 

So every time a laser hits a cloud of sand, it's *creating* IR decoys!

I like it. Heck, if you have the spare laser capacity, it'd even be
worthwhile firing some of your own lasers into it if there were a *lot*
of missiles coming, but out of range of your lasers. Get them going on
the wrong heading to give you extra time.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 01:29:32 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Missiles+fighters II

In mail you write:

> pack a punch.  Another modification would be that a missile would have no
> fuel or engine.  The fighter zooms in and "drops" the missile, the missile
> would continue to travel at the speed and vector of its initial drop and
> hit the capital ship.  Taking away fuel/engine from the missile would
> leave more room for explosives.

Unless you expect impact velocities *below* 3 km/sec there's no *need*
for explosives, as at 3 km/sec the missile has enough kinetic energy
that it will act as if *all* of it was TNT! And the energy goes up as
the *square* of the velocity.

This is how a paint chip blasted a thumbnail-sized crater in one of the
Space Shuttle's windows a few years back. Sheer kinetic energy.

And "deadfall" ordinance like this is next to impossible to get on
target. If you are going to try, your best bet is a rapid-fire gauss
gun fire a few thousand 25 gram (about an ounce) projectiles in the
general direction of where you *think* the ship will be. That few
thousand rounds will only weigh 25 kilos per thousand, and assuming a
closing velocity of 300 km/sec, each round impacts with the power of
250 kilos of TNT!

So "machine guns" have a place in Traveller.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 01:52:01 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: What to Call M:0 RICE/BARD Papers?

In mail you write:

> The TML already sees RICE (Regency Institute for Cultural Exchange) and
> BARD (Bureau of Aggregate Reference Data) Papers for worlds in the TNE
> milieu.  But what should we call such things written from a T4, Milieu:0
> vantage point?
>
> ZIPP?  (Zhunastu Industries Planetary Profile)
> ICCI?  (Imperial Contact and Cultural Information)
> SARI?  (Sylean Astrographic Research Initiative)
>
> Your suggestions, serious and tongue-in-cheek both, would be appreciated.

I don't know, but I'm working on a "Gazetteer" (ie map "index") for all
the eras I have data for. Since it's sectors, subsectors, stars and
planets, it's all "astrographic" data. So I figure it should have a
name using "Gazetteer" and "Astrographic". Something like GAS
(Gazetteer of the Astrographic Society). Any ideas? 

I have the advantage that Gazetteers tend to be dated anyway. So I can
just stick a year or period name on the end.

If folks want to help with the data entry, let me know. I'm using dBase
III+, so that format or comma and quote delimited ASCII will be best.
I'll post the structure if folks are interested.

ps. the nice thing about this is that it will wind up indexing all
references to the info, but shouldn't compromise the copyrights on the
material. So I ought to be able to publish it on the web without much
trouble.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 02:15:44 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Missiles+Fighters

In mail you write:

> too easy if Joe Public Xho-spy could own one. The same goes for
> massdetectors. May players had to come up with some ingenious reasons why
> they need a mass detector as they actually will use it to search for
> Ancient portals in gas giants. The portals give away large gravity waves
> when something enters/exits them.

Actually, there should be no such need. You see, our *current,
primitive mass detectors are in *widespread use for gelogical survey
work. They help detect ore bodies, and petroleum deposits. 

Remember, most mass detectors are actually providing a *density* map.
They can be set up to only look for gravity *waves*, but that prevents
sensing "static" masses. (ie yiou can only detect mass/energy *changes*).

> This could be an excellent handwave for why space fleets cannot pass each
> other by in a system despite there being so many refuelling options in a
> solar system. Due to comsinc events such as suns crashing into one another,
> large chunks of matter colliding with black holes et c in the Universe
> there could be gravitywave storms sweeping through the systems at certain
> time and if the source lay beyond Zhodani space they'd know about it before
> the Imperials and time their injumps to the oncoming of the wavefront.
>
> Bad idea, cool idea or what?

If you have multiple sensors spread out in space, you can't spoof them
that way. They'll be getting *direction* info as well as amplitude, so
they'll notice that they have two signals, one distant, one close.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 12:10:08 -0400
From: russcm@zoomnet.net (Christopher M. Russell)
Subject: Re: IR masking

>
>The problems here are many:
>
>* You can't analyze and re-emit fast enough; by the time you know what the
>wave looks like, it's already on its way to the enemy.  You can't outrace
>the wave signalling ahead to a later emitter, either.

Wouldn't need to do it like that. You can have a record of typical emissions
the ship produces in a given situation and transmit based on that
information. This would go a long way in dampening the emissions made by the
power plant.

>* Your hull is not a coherent source; the IR coming off it will be
>nonpolarized and out of phase, so no one signal could counter it.

But you can take out much of it, at least the ones from sources like the
power plant, as I mentioned above.

>* Even if you could, doing so from an extended source would create a
>chaotic web of maxima and minima rather than a simple overall damping.

Nothing's perfect :)

>* Finally, the clincher, though I've left it for last as it's hardest to
>explain.  Owing to the nature of entropy, the process of gathering data
>and correlating the signals would generate *more* heat than you
>"canceled".  Ouch.  Gotta hate that Second Law...

Data gathering would simply be passive IR sensors along the hull to correct
for past data gathered. If a change is detected, and observed by the sensors
over a period of a minute or so, a counter signal can be transmitted to
dampen that until the sensors detect that emision to cease. If the signal
becomes permanent, it could be a sign of a maintenance problem, etc, but
would be cataloged and dealt with.

>Speaking of which, my favorite formulation of the Three Laws of
>Thermodynamics:
>
>  1. You can't win.
>  2. You can't break even.
>  3. You can't quit the game.
>
>Sorry, just had to share that. :)
>

You can never have a perfect way for masking all the IR because of one
problem, reflected IR from other heat sources. My main idea was a way to
dampen sources like the power plant and other emission sources that could be
measured over time and cataloged by the ships computer. You can't end up
with a stealth ship, but it will keep the ship from lighting up like a
lighthouse in deep space.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 23:33:06 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

In mail you write:

> I don't want cyberpunk Traveller, I want a Traveller which takes into
> account realistic advances in science and technology.  Traveller as "the
> game of 1960s/ 70s SF" is an amazingly dull idea to me.  I want Traveller
> to be a game of *modern* science fiction.  Not cyberpunk, but SF which
> takes all the advances in computer technology and genetic engineering into
> account. 

Slight problem. As Vernor Vinge and others point out, within a century
the technology will be *beyond* anything we could imagine (Vinge calls
it "The Singularity"). 

It's even being said that we may never *reach* the stars, because of
the speed at which networking will expand. By the time we'd have the
technology to go, we couldn't handle being (effictively) disconnected
from the network. So we'd have to get FTL communications before we
could spread out that far.

Genetics and other fields have similar problems with the results
cascading in the not too distant future.

> The farm worlds and factory worlds set up of Traveller simply doesn't make
> sense in light of 90s technology.  With CSC and EA the actual technology
> in the game is getting better (though its still too conservative) but the
> social changes produced by these technologies are largely ignored. 

Hell, if you haven't seen my comments about what fusion power and
advanced materials technology will do, try to find them in the
archives. 

As a brief summary, fusion makes it possible to turn any matter into a
plasma and "filter" out individual *isotopes*. That kills mining,
except for a very few things like gemstones, decorative stone for
construction, and organics (coal and oil as chemical feedstocks).

Manufacturing techniques will be at the "feed in the computer generated
specs, and the 'faber'(fabricator) will assemble the item from
individual *atoms*". The only considerations are speed, and size of
item that the unit can handle. This makes manufacturing unrecognizable.

And this makes 90% of Traveller impossible or silly. And a game based
on this *realistic* projection wouldn't sell. Because most folks either
wouldn't believe it, or couldn't understand it.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 00:03:24 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Fighters BB Killing Weapons

In mail you write:

>     1) Take a missle and give it 1,000g of acceleration for 300 seconds.  You
> now have a missile moving at your target at .01c and that WILL punch through
> just about any armor you care to put on the ship.  At the worst case senario
> the target is going to have to expend a LOT of energy trying to vaporize the
> incoming missile.

Two problems. First, it takes 450,000 km (1.5 light seconds) to reach
that speed. And in 300 seconds, a ship with *one* g drive covers 450
km. So the ship won't be where you aimed, and the missile has a hard
time getting a lock at the starting distance. 

It also requires an *enormous* amount of fuel/power.

>     And while 1,000g for 300 seconds is brutal, I do believe it would
> be possible to design a guidence system for such a missle that would
> withstand the initial accelleration.  This means the missle can lock
> onto it's target and compensate for the rather violent manuever the
> target is going to go through trying to avoid being hit.

Oh, we can design a missile that does 1000 g *now*. I believe a couple
of missiles designed for the terminal intercept part of the ABM system
*did* have that kind of acceleration. But only for a few seconds.

>     2) One word _antimatter_ as in placed in the warhead.  Nuclear
> Dampers will not effect antimatter, completely different forces
> involved.  The destructive potential is I believe 100x more powerful
> then thermonuclear weapons.  A direct hit would kill your average
> superdreadnaught I believe.  Antimatter is something we're producing
> right now, abet in the form of subatomic particles.  Still given the
> advances of succeeding Tech Levels it's probably that by Tech 12 the
> technology will exist to manufacture, manipulate, store and deploy
> antimatter weapons.

Alas, the rules put antimatter at TL 17. And it's *always* gonna be
hideously expensive. To make one kilo of antimatter requires
180,000,000 Gigajoules of energy (you have to create matter and
antimatter in equal amounts). And that's assuming the very unlikely
scenario of 100% efficient conversion.

To quote an old sage "To pull a rabbit *out* of a hat, one must first
put a rabbit *into* the hat!"

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
shadow@krypton.rain.com         <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 11:32:22 -0700
From: Danny_M._Moody@mailhost.bridge.com (Danny M. Moody)
Subject: Re[2]: Emperor's Arsenal

>On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, David J. Golden wrote:
>
>Snippage about 3G3...
>
>>       Again, not directly related, but useable. I haven't decided whether I
>like
>> it yet, but I'm rather persnickety. Greg seems very thorough. The biggest
>> issue I've seen, browsing through it, is that no matter how big a weapon
>> gets, his T4 conversion produces a damage of 3D. Period.
>
>Well, not exactly. My design for a 20mm single shot sniper rifle does 8D
>of damage...;-) But you are right, reasonable handheld weapons do 2 or 3D
>of damage. This is, I think, due far more to the coarseness of the T4
>damage scale than anything else.

Actually, all weapons in T4 do max 3D damage (except shotguns) by designers (MM)
fiat.  There is a rule in T4 that states this.  The 'damage value' calculated in
3G3 is a penetration value.

In the T4 book and EA, its called damage, in CSC its called penetration.

When the round hits someone, subtract the armour value from the damage, and 
apply what is left to the character, with a max of 3d.

Your 8d rifle will plow through up to 8 pts of armour, but, even if it hits an 
unarmoured person, it will only do 3d damage max.

- -Vanya

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 10:33:41 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Computer Tech

Bill Prankard wrote:
> 
> TL-7 Basic machines, Apple II's Commodore 64's etc...
> 

You mentioned only personal computers. Don't forget that the vast
majority of computing horsepower in TL7 was "big iron".

> TL-9 This is where we are today, Pentiums, primative VR. Global Data Net,
> DVD's etc...
> 

Refresh my poor memory. What's DVD?

>  Everything looks very Star Trek-ish (2-D touchboards, Traveller's "Dynamic
> Controls") portable computers are now hand held datapads, the portable CPU's
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

We have this now. Seen the Pilot?

> Comments, suggestions, thoughts...

Never mind my mild criticisms, all in all this is good stuff. I'm
thinking of consolidating all of the suggestions and comments in this
thread into a TL chart for computer technology. I'll post it to the
list if there's interest.

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1176
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest       Friday, April 11 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1177



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

book request
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Re: Missiles
Re: Beyond the [solomani] rim...
Re: KBv2.0 & Experience
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII
Re: Computer Tech
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Re: Realism vs. Play Value
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
QSDS External Grapple
Re: CSC Armour?
Re: IR Sensors in Space
Re: CSC Armor?
Re: Joe Walsh Task System 
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1176
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII
Re: Question- IR sigs for small craft

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 13:16:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dedly@aol.com
Subject: book request

Well, I was finally got a chance to check out Emperor's Arsenal. Although I
didn't buy it (Busy with a bidding war on the Auction), I really really liked
it. I'm not sure when I'll pick it up (my pc's have enough toys to play with)
but it gave me an idea. I'd posted a few days ago (last week?) that I wanted
a book that was all about TL advancement. Someone (Hans?) had mentioned that
the MT Referee's Companion (as opposed to the Manual that I have) might have
what I was looking for. Of course, being out of print, it would be hard to
find an availible and affordable copy. So, why not come up with a T4 book on
TL advancement in various fields (medicine, chemistry, communications,
transportation, computers, urban infrastructure, etc) written in a style like
Emperor's Arsenal. Each field could take up about 3-4 pages with the info
summarized in a table. The text could discuss what was availible and/or
commonplace at each TL. The CT Ironmongery supplement explained by TL what
sorts of weaponry were utilized by troops. It also included support vehicles
and heavy arms (howitzers, grav tanks, etc). I found that to be EXTREMELY
helpful. Emperor's Arsenal follows in that tradition. CSC is good for
specific equipment but we don't get to see the whole picture. 

Any thoughts anyone? 

\_/
DED

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 10:16:24 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Paul D. Owensby wrote:

> >TL12-15 computers definitely won't have any keyboards
> 
> Oh? and what do you suggest using for imput in crowded starport lounges
> or in lecture halls where you don't want to disturb/be overheard by others?
> Pens? I can type a lot faster than I can write, and with less strain. I won't 
> even mention legibility... :)


	Actually, the fact that you can type faster than you can write,
and more legibly, is determined quite a bit by the fact that you routinely
use a keyboard to enter information, rather than handwriting. Given that
handwriting recognition is actually pretty good at this TL (test fly a
Newton 2000 if you doubt me...the thing comes with the HWR speed set to
delayed, otherwise it's faster than most people can write, and it messes
up words.)

	Learning to write even on the crude devices we have today is
reasonably easy...it took me about a week to get decent recognition on my
Newton 100, which is the next to oldest model, with a real old OS.
	
	We have barely started to scratch the surface of handwriting-driven
devices, I really think they will be far more common in the future.

	There are two ways to deal with the problem, exemplified by the
two major players in the market: the Newton and the Pilot (WinCe devices
do not have useful HWR; the pen is used primarily as a mouse on those
devices, and their design clearly shows that the keyboard is expected to
be the major text inout device) 

	The Newton has two modes of recognition, letter and word. Letter
simply tries to match the letterforms your are using, string them
together, and guess where words are separated. Word mode, does the above,
then tries to match the 'word' with a known one in it's dictionary to
guess what you have written. This is classic handwriting recognition,
because with practice, the machine tends to 'learn' how you write, based
on what you write and the corrections you make. With current devices it's
as much training the user as vice versa...as a user you rapidly learn to
to write in ways that are easily recognized. This would be an ideal
situation for a neural-net type of recognizer architecture. 

	This has problems, though. It's consumptive of processor resources
(which is why the 160 mHz 64 bit chip in the Newton 2000 is so much better
than the 25 mHz 32 bit one in the older models), but that's a minor
technological problem. It's also, in it's purest form, very
personal...after training, another user will get worse recognition...you
just can't swipe a pad off the top, write on it and expect it to recognize
it. 

	Again, this is primarily constrained by processor power. If we can
crank enough processing power onto the problem, this is solvable. (there's
no computing problem in the world enough teraflops can't handle ;-)

	The second approach, exemplified by the Pilot (and the same
software on the Newton, called Graffiti) is to make the user use a
specialized gesture sequence for letterform recognition. This is limiting
in that the user needs to learn a new alphabet, (and I'd REALLY hate to
try to decipher the handwritten notes of a heavy Gaffiti user!) This is
also much faster at lower processor speed.

	This is also known as shorthand. With the ascendancy of rapid word
processing, shorthand has fallen into disuse, but my mother-in-law could
still do shorthand faster than she could type, and she could type like a
vulcan gatling gun could shoot! (being retired, she's out of practice on
both, but she can still out-type me with one hand tied behind her back)

	Now, if shorthand was taught in schools like typing skills are
taught today, believe me, HWR devices would be very advantageous over
keyboards.

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 19:31:43 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
Subject: Re: Missiles

On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, Sam Thomas wrote:

> At 07:08 PM 4/9/97 +0200, you wrote:
> >
> >Does anyone have some different missile-designs 
> >for T4.
> >
> >Tommy Grav
> >
> >
> 
> Just how different do you mean or are you just shoppin for "Canonite"
> things?<G>
> 
Just want some missiles to put in the missile barbettes of
ships I design. I can't seem to find any types of missile,
kinetic, nuclear of laser-det. What I need to know is
size, damage, acceleration and duration 

f.eks
     1dton  5D6  6G/36G    Nuclear

or something to this effect.    

> 
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
> (c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
> Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
> Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
> -----------------------------------------------------
> 

Tommy Grav

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 10:50:45 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Beyond the [solomani] rim...

According to canon(iirc)...'here be dragons' or something like that...I
don't think there IS an official sector rimward of the Solomani Rim. 

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 10:56:36 -0700
From: Douglas McCorison <douglas@camax.com>
Subject: Re: KBv2.0 & Experience

Actually I've been thinking on this too.  My players have been
complaining that I don't give enough experience.  What I've come up with
is as follows:

Skills are measured as Level & Value - 
	Level is the T4 Skill level
	Value is the KB Experience 

When I give out experience points, they can use each experience point to
roll one die.  If the roll is greater than the current Skill Value
(Experience) then the Skill Value (Experience) goes up by one.  When the
Skill Value (Experience) increases by 3 points, the Skill Level goes up
by one.  The character always uses the current Skill Value for target
rolls.  The Skill Level is used by for other tables (such as the Actual
Value table for broker) and for all Jack of All Trades rolls.

This means giving experience more often and in larger amounts.  I think
I've given 3 points of experience once, mostly just one point.  And
generally I've given those out only after two or three sessions of play
of 4 hours each.  With this system I'm looking at 1 or 2 points every
session with bonuses for success, etc.


Thoughts? Ideas? Flames?

Douglas

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 04:00:01 
From: dadams@tig.com.au
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

** Reply to note from anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman) Fri, 11 Apr 1997 10:15:03 +0100 
>    
    
> The guy that wrote: 
> >The reason for this is for the telling of the story. The story is king in 
> >RPG, the science is 
> >a handle, a plot device that allows the story to flow. 
 
The guy is me. Darryl Adams. 
 
>    
> should take a look at a great rpg in the space opera genre: It is called 
> Star Wars has great artwork high drama wacky science and technology and 
> playable rules. What it does NOT have is internal consistency but that 
> should be no problem; the story is king, if I want small kuddly TL 0 
> teddybears beat the crap out of "An entire legion of my best troops" that's 
> OK because my players are romantic TV-junkie morons. 
>    
 
Im sory, but this does not wash. I have Star Wars, and while is is a more simplistic system 
than Traveller, It is still internally consistant, as it is a reproductions of one man's 
vision (George Lucus).  
 
Lets face it, if you want to play hard science fiction, play soemthing based on Allen Steele's 
near earth stories or 2300Ad (a better hard sci fi game than traveller, as the only thing that 
breaks the reality test is shuttlewarp).  
 
 
> Oops a little rash perhaps but I say: Those wanting to play Space Opera do 
> it but don't come dragging with some kind of universal law that says 
> science andd tech is just plot devices because that is the MAIN reason why 
> most movies/TV is so bad. In space opera science and tech is plotdevices 
> but that is one genre out of many. The reason Space Opera is so popular is 
> that we live in an undereducated world where most people equate science 
> with magic. My Traveller players have been, astronomers, programmers, 
> chemists, fighterpilots, cops, astrophyscists etc and I have to run a 
> universe that seems believable to them. 
 
I point to Issac Asimov, A C CLarke, Niven and Pournelle, James Hogan and other writers 
of hard science fiction. Sometimes these people pick up a scientific princible and fly with 
it as the focus (The Gods Themselves, The Genisis machine et al), they mainly tell the story. 
You did not see Asimov write an essay on how Psycohistory works and how the Mule stuffed it 
up, you had a story on how a person screwed up a master plan.  
 
Take "Double Star" by Heilien (?sp). He had realistic space travel in the book (with the 
characters strapped to high g couches), but it was not the focus of the book. The focus was a 
extra planetary plot and how soem dedicated people stopped it. The travel was a device, to 
assist in the telling of the story. 
 
While I want concistancy in Traveller, I aslo want a system that does what I want. Traveller 
for me is the 1100 year empire, of wars and intrige, of laughter and chaos. I dont realy care 
if some breaks the laws of physics, for it first and foremost a fun place to be in. 
 
 
And isnt what RPG is all about? 
 
 
   
 

Darryl Adams		dadams@tig.com.au 
 

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 19:05:12 +0100
From: catwalk <catwalk@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: Computer Tech

Erwin Fritz wrote:
> 
> 
> Never mind my mild criticisms, all in all this is good stuff. I'm
> thinking of consolidating all of the suggestions and comments in this
> thread into a TL chart for computer technology. I'll post it to the
> list if there's interest.
- ---I`m interested.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 04:09:08 
From: dadams@tig.com.au
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

** Reply to note from Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com> Fri, 11 Apr 1997 08:35:01 -0600 
>    
> Per Bernhardsson wrote: 
> >  
> > Paul D. Owensby wrote: 
> > > 
> > > >TL12-15 computers definitely won't have any keyboards 
> > > 
> > > Oh? and what do you suggest using for imput in crowded starport lounges 
> > > or in lecture halls where you don't want to disturb/be overheard by others? 
> > > Pens? I can type a lot faster than I can write, and with less strain. I won't 
> > > even mention legibility... :) 
> >  
> > How about touch screens (Star Trek style) and perhaps even holographic 
> > keyboards. It's not something we would get used too very quickly, but it 
> > might work. Come to think of it solid holographic keyboards (Star Trek 
> > holodeck). Another way to fix the problem with being overheard is some 
> > type of security field that blocks of your little cubicle from in/out 
> > going sounds. 
> >  
> >  / Per 
>    
> Something that just occurred to me: the problem with VR today is 
> that you have to wear special gloves so the the computer can detect 
> your movement. I don't think it's unreasonable to presume that by 
> TL 12+, the computer will have sufficiently complex sensors to  
> detect your motions without having you wear anything. 
>    
> If so, then the keyboard-less society becomes reality because you 
> just point or gesture and the system'll pick up what you mean. 
 
An interesting series with Gillian Anderson hosting it (It was in Quantem in Australia) had 
some interesting ideas. While they showed direct feed nural interface (done in Canada in the 
70's), the obvious conclusion is external electrical field readings. A ring, or even your 
clothes, monitors brain waves and other electrical impuses, and converts them as computer 
imput. Typing with your mind so to speak. 
 
They also showed VR, much like Neil Stephenson's Snow Crash. Thsi too can be tied up with 
WONDER CLOTH , and a pair of sunnies for that full VR experience. 
 
And they are talking about this stuf next decade, not three TL's away. 


Darryl Adams		dadams@tig.com.au 
 

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 13:14:51 -0500
From: Jeff Harvey <jharvey@nlci.com>
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value

I can't even believe that I am responding to this, because there is NO
WAY to change anyone's opinion.  However, my intelligence has been
insulted, and that seems reason enough.

	I have to say that I agree, to a certain extent, with Darryl Adams. 
However, the story is NOT king.  The IMAGINATION is.  We are attempting
to look into the future, and determine what those people/civilizations
will be capable of.  How can we know?  Is there any way that we can
actually know what they will have 2000 years from now??? NO, THERE IS
NOT!  

	The gearheads, such as Anders Backman, are so deeply rooted in their
belief in Physics, and science in general, that they have allowed them
to pull the plug on their imaginations.  How one can play a RPG without
imagination is beyond me.  By the way, Mr. Backman, we are all very
impressed with the list of "scientists" that you have as players. 
Ooooo......Ahhhhhhh.  

	Playing a RPG is a form of escapism, just like reading a book is
escapism, and watching a movie is escapism.  It allows a person to
submerge themselves into another reality for a few hours at a time. 
That is the reason that we play RPG's.  The world as we know it SUCKS! 
We can't change it, so we leave it for a while.  Anyone who denies that
this is true, is lying.  So, now you tell me that I have to play
according to what is possible in our real world.  I don't think so. As
Mr. Adams asked, explain the physics behind the Jump Drive.  I, as soon
as it is possible, would like the formula's and equasions that prove
that Jump Space is there, and that the Jump Drive is possible.  Better
than that, tell me how it is possible to evolve a race of sentient
humanoids from Terran wolves, cats, cows, and frogs.  Come on everyone,
get out your slide rules, I'm asking serious Traveller questions, based
on hard science, and I want answers.  If I can't get them, I guess that
I'll just have to scrap Traveller altogether.  WRONG!!!  I will use my
imagination to allow the possibility of such things.  

	Now, that being said, should referee's allow their PC's to run around
and create anything that they want.  NO.  There must be values and
limitations placed on any technology.  There must be a plausible
explanation that allows for technology, even if it is imaginary.  Hard
Science is a good starting point, and most technology should be rooted
in HS, but there is room for imagination.  So, a new technology follows
2 laws of physics, and breaks 1.  Find an imaginary reason that it can
break that law, and move on.  Try to be as logical as possible, and
provide a clear definition, but move on.  

	I personally imagine tech level advancement of a planet/culture to take
lifetimes.  Many scientists spend their lives looking for new improved
ways to do things, or to find things that couldn't be done previously. 
Most of the science up to Tech Level 15 is spelled out for us in
Traveller anyway, therefore, we only have to worry about Tech Level 16
and up.  Well, I've said enough.  You can play Traveller the way that
you want to, and I'll play the way I want to.  That is what this
discussion will come down to in the long run.  

					Jeff Harvey

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 11:17:37 -0700
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

At 01:53 AM 4/12/97 +1200, Rupert Boleyn wrote:
>I've always used the premise that cultures
>with the relatively chaep intersteller flight of Traveller would have plenty
>of space and resources, and thus wouldn't have the worship of minaturization
>that the modern western world has.

Minaturization isn't done because of lack of physical space, and is only
moderately related to straight physical resources.  It has more to do with
human-scale packaging and power consumption.  Even in a society with great
power generation, you'll want greatly minaturized components for carryable
and wearable computers, for example, and then too you don't want to have to
strap on a fusion+ reactor just to power your hand computer.  


- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 21:02:46 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
Subject: QSDS External Grapple

According to QSDS you need 1129 square meters surface
to install a external grapple for a 50 dton ship.

According to FF&S you need the ship to be grappled lenght
squared in surface area to use an external grapple.
For a 50 dton ship this is 11.2 squared = 125.44 square meters

Seems to be a mistake in QSDS or?

Tommy Grav  
  

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 21:08:04 +0200
From: Per Bernhardsson <bard@ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: CSC Armour?

Ethan Henry wrote:

<SNIP>

> Have you read CSC? Greg Porter explicitly staes that you don't
> just add up AVs for layered armour and that you have to know
> the total thickness of all layers to calculate the composite AV.

I haven't had the opportunity to do that yet. The supply of Traveler
books in the store where I live is limited to the TNE Regency
Sourcebook. So I have to wait until I get home to my parents in about a
month before I can buy stuff. :(

> The relationship between thickness and AV is non-linear, so don't
> expect to be able to add AVs. Under most circumstances, you just take
> the highest AV of all the layers and use that value. ie. guy in body
> armor in a tank uses just the tank's AV. If a bullet gets through the tank,
> it'll probably get through the body armour.

I could agree with nonlinear, but I think cubic nonlinearity is a bit
overdoing it... Well, it's just my oppinion that is just based on a
vague hunch. Who knows it might be the correct way of calcualting it (in
RL that is).

 / Per

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 14:22:47 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: IR Sensors in Space

At 11:17 PM 4/10/97 -0700, Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net> wrote:
>> major snip<<<
>'Power level' or 'signal strength' would be a better term.  And yes,
>that's true.  What you don't realize is how *small* a signal you can
>detect against a 'black' or dim background.  Before they stopped listening
>ten days ago, the radio signal strength from Pioneer 10 was on the order
>of a billionth of a trillionth (1e-21) of a watt...but they had no
>difficulty listening to the signal, nor tracking the craft.
>

Is this kind a "cheat", ie "NASA et al" "knows" the Pioneer's course,
speed, and exact parameters for tracking purposes. NASA knows exactly where
to "point" the sensors so to speak. What would Pioneer's chances of being
detected by a random search pattern by sensors that did not have any clue
about Pioneer's? I don't think that Pioneer's is evading on purpose either.
In space combat I would hope that the would not supply you the info to
track it.


- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 21:28:41 +0200
From: Per Bernhardsson <bard@ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: CSC Armor?

Anders Backman wrote:
> 
> Assuming of course that you can add AV figures which the above formula
> proves you cannot. I think your preconceived assumtions are a bit strange,
> no offense meant however (he said donning his asbestos underwear).

No offense taken, the reason I think in the way of adding armor like
that is the I started my Traveller playing with TNE and FFS in which the
armor is treated that way. Which in my opinion is much easier and many
ways more realistic. OK, there might be some nonlinearity but that will
probably differ between materials quite a lot. Not that I have a very
good replacement or anything, but I just wanted to mention something I
though was strange.

 / Per

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 15:26:26 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Joe Walsh Task System 

I love your new task system! I'll implement it in my next Paranoia-Traveller
crossover! Just one question:

>Cautious Tasks: Characters can make the task drop to the Easy level by 
>taking exactly 42 days to complete it.

Is this 42 days in game time or real time? :)

P.S. And hey, don't forget to post 5 times a day explaining why your system
is the greatest thing since the invention of the d4, and why IG are a bunch 
of absolute loonies for not proclaiming you Task System God. :)


**********************************************************
  Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
 CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 15:26:40 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

>> Oh? and what do you suggest using for imput in crowded starport lounges
>> or in lecture halls where you don't want to disturb/be overheard by others?
>> Pens? I can type a lot faster than I can write, and with less strain. I won't
>> even mention legibility... :)
>> 
>
>Picture a phone-booth structure. You use your voice! Bet you can
>talk faster than you can type.

Oh, so every park, jetliner, cafeteria, etc. will have a "Cone of Silence" room
like they have smoking sections now, huh? :) Sorry, I just feel we will keep the
ability to talk w/ our fingers, whether it be w/ a keyboard, chord buttons,
what-
have-you, for a long time to come. Unless all future computer users are willing
to have mastoid mikes so that they can subvocalize their speech.

**********************************************************
  Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
 CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 20:20:11 +0100 (BST)
From: Wibbley Woo Woo <aa4mwi@zen.sunderland.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1176

> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 08:17:02 -0700
> From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
> Subject: Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)
> 
> At 08:55 AM 4/11/97 +0200, Per Bernhardsson wrote:
> >Christopher Russell wrote:
> >
> >I just had to repy on this one...
> >
> >> The IRS's problem is that it is still using machines that do not have any
> >> sort of parallel processing, and likely are still runing under 25mhz.
> 
> Most US government programming is done in Cobol and ADA.  According to one
> GAO study, less than 25% of all programming contracted for the US
> government is used (the rest is deemed unusable on delivery, and yet is
> still paid for).  In this study, the _only_ program used as delivered was a
> pre-compiler that did not have significant user or database interactivity.  
> 
> And supposedly, the computers on the Shuttle are still using ferrite core
> memory.  Supposedly each of the computers is less powerful than a 386.
> Anyone know for certain?
I think this is a reasonable assumption as they in space technolgy they 
do have to use stuff which is bug free. None of this oops ***Fatal 
Windows Error-Reboot** stuff here it has to work first time.
But I do know they use a few portable 486's I think they definately use 
portables added for something as I saw them I a documentary on the 
shuttle. Perhaps they're for experiment monitoring or somesuch.
Any other people out there know any more.

mark wilkin

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 12:14:53 -0700
From: jdconnors@genmagic.com (joel connors)
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

>And the answer is, yes, it would.  That's what people have been saying.
>The closest things to IR masking you can do without breaking physics and
>introducing unintended consequences are:
>
>(a) Chill the side of the ship toward your opponent, radiate a *lot* more
>    heat off the other side.  This takes truly scary amounts of power,
>    and still only gives you stealth in one direction -- you're visible
>    for light-hours from the other directions.
>
>(b) Use flares/decoys to confuse the IR target picture, losing yourself
>    in the clutter.
>

Craig,

What are the viabilities of "dispersing" your signature. I'm a computer
marketing geek, so forgive my vagueness here. I am going to go hypothetical
with what I understand from your posts.
Theory:
A heat signature from a 100 ton craft is very noticable, partly becuase you
have that much heat in that little space. 
Background space has a certain amount of heat sources and "tides".
Genertated from local stars, planets, space debis, dust clouds, etc.

Craig, have I hit even close to the nail here?

If the above theories are true, then would it be possible to bleed your heat
over a larger area? 
Example, the afore mentioned 100 ton ship has the ability to spread its heat
signature out over an area of space 10-20 times greater than its actual area.

I could see two things happening if this were feasible. 
1- If detected the heat signature is spread out making a hard lock more
dificult.
2- By spreading the heat signature out, you have the possibilty to lower it
enough to be lost in the background heat.

Well, Im just blowing theories out, can the hard science boys help me here?


Last I want to ask a real world to Traveller clarificaton.

Why are IR missiles less desirable than radar guided?
Arguement: Would a Jet Turbine aircraft scraming through the atmosphere not
have a hign skin tempature? If so why are IR sensors not used more for
detection. 

I imagine there are some logical reasons, probably having to due with that
pesky atmosphere thing.

Best,
Joel Connors

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 12:14:54 -0700
From: jdconnors@genmagic.com (joel connors)
Subject: Re: Question- IR sigs for small craft

At 11:40 PM 4/10/97 -0700, you wrote:
>> Great message, regarding the IR and detecting Starship sized targets.
>
>Thanks very much.  If this keeps up I'll need to dig out my old sensor
>books... :)
>
>> Can you give a similar analysis for the following ship style.
>> 
>> A small 5-10 Grav plate driven craft with no internal life support. The
>> Pilot would be using Space Battledress for his life support.
>
>What's the power source?  If fusion, then you get results a lot like what
>I posted for larger craft, only with perhaps 10% (10 db down) signal
>strength.  Even with your pilot in a vacc suit, that suit has to come to
>equilibrium with the pilot's 300 K innards, and the hull with the suit,
>more or less (cooler at the hull, actually, but still well above 200 K for
>a smallish craft).  And of course, the fusion drive spikes emissions
>through the roof, just like it always does.  So, basically, you end up
>with a target that's an order of magnitude or two harder to detect, but no
>other major differences.
>

Craig,

Grab those books :)

Okay, I will be happy to admit that I am out of the tech loop as I haven''t
had books for three years (still kick myself for selling them).

Now, at this time given the overall Traveller systems, what are the options
for a power plant?
If you are trying to build a stealthy ship, fusion may not be the best plan.
This is why I chose a grav driven vehicle.

Next as to the Pilot. First I know its semantics but let me stress full on
full sized BD, not just a Vacc Suit. With BD, the system is already designed
for reducing signatures (What good is that T15 armor when every grunt with
an IR shoulder fired missle can see him?). Also if stealth is key, BD
already has provisions for "Coolant packs" (forgot the real name). So I
would summerise that at the point when detection becomes a problem, the
pilot kicks in all masking features of the BD. 

I'm looking for more suggestions on how to create a small hard to detect
craft. The primary goal is low signature, all else is secondary.

I have an end goal, and the design concepts. I want to role as much real
world laws into the design, so that the science fiction handwaving is little
to nill.My guess Craig is if I can work with you, we can combine
science/fiction/and game into a viable blend that stays with in the
Traveller milue, and not dive into the Star Wars milue.

Best,

Joel Connors

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1177
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest       Friday, April 11 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1178



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Computer Tech
Re: IR masking
Re: Computer Tech
Re: IR Sensors in Space
RE: QSDS External Grapple
Re: book request
[none]
Re: book request
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII
Re: Missiles+fighters II
Re: IR masking.
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters
Re: [T97#1165] TL Advancement
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII (longish)
Rimward of Solomani rim...
Re: Computer Tech
Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 21:34:52 +0200
From: Per Bernhardsson <bard@ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: Computer Tech

Bill Prankard wrote:
> 
> Greetings!

<Lots of interesting stuff SNIPPED>
 
> TL-11&12 the computer systems get smaller, and so do the datacrystals.
>  Everything looks very Star Trek-ish (2-D touchboards, Traveller's "Dynamic
> Controls") portable computers are now hand held datapads, the portable CPU's
> are now pocket size instad of paperback size.  Optics are so miniturised
> that a spycam could be anywhere and is!
> Computer controll of almost everything, Road-Grid for example.  VR is still
> used for some applications, but experiments in VR and holograms develop
> the...
> 
> TL-13 Holographic displays with tactile feedback, kinda a 3d touch screen,
> no need for VR gloves and HUD's.

I like this one!

> later TL's develop the Meson comm-net, no need for satalites, data is
> directly passed though the planet to the reciever, faster load times.

Not much faster, but it should be more resistant against solar flares.

> I know that technicaly the TL for late 20th century Earth is 8, mind you
> this is an average.  I beleive that the computer technology we have today
> that is top of line has broken through to TL-9 already.
>
> Comments, suggestions, thoughts...
> (The Commander gets out his flame retardant suit and fire extinguisher...)
> :)

No flames from me. I like it. Sounds more realistic and more fun than
the traditional Traveller computers.

 / Per

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 12:53:01 -0800
From: "David P. Summers" <dsummers@mail.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: IR masking

A lot of the analysis here depends on the one presumption which
I find questionable.  That excess energy must be lost of passive
black body emission.  The fact is that one can certainly see
a ship masking itself by either using a force emission at
a wavelength that is better masked by the background (like
the interstellar microwave background) and by emitting the
energy on a tight beam away from the enemy.

The only requirement that thermodynamics imposes is that
you spend energy to do this.

[Disclaimer: If NASA had an opinion they wouldn't have ME give it.]
summers@alum.mit.edu

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 21:41:49 +0200
From: Per Bernhardsson <bard@ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: Computer Tech

Erwin Fritz wrote:
> 
> Refresh my poor memory. What's DVD?

Digital Video Disk

> Never mind my mild criticisms, all in all this is good stuff. I'm
> thinking of consolidating all of the suggestions and comments in this
> thread into a TL chart for computer technology. I'll post it to the
> list if there's interest.

Interest? INTEREST?!? I want it!!! I want it!!! I want it!!!

*clearing my throat*

Sorry about that. Actually I'd appretiate any type of TL charts.

 / Per

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 12:39:32 -0800
From: "David P. Summers" <dsummers@mail.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: IR Sensors in Space

Thu, 10 Apr 1997 23:17:46 -0700 (PDT), Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
>Before they stopped listening
>ten days ago, the radio signal strength from Pioneer 10 was on the order
>of a billionth of a trillionth (1e-21) of a watt...but they had no
>difficulty listening to the signal, nor tracking the craft.

This is actually a lot different than detection.  We are talking
about pulling a modulated signal at a known freqency and location.
The fact is that, if we didn't already know it was there, we
would have no chance of detecting it.

After all, if it was that easy, they would be able to detect
every single airplane within a direct line of sight (including
stealth aircraft).  (If you can detect the signal coming
though the atmosphere, then you can detect it coming
from someplace in the atmosphere).

[Disclaimer: If NASA had an opinion they wouldn't have ME give it.]
summers@alum.mit.edu

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 16:30:00 -0400
From: Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org>
Subject: RE: QSDS External Grapple

<QUOTE ON>

From: Tommy Grav
To: BPRANKARD; isba
Cc: Traveller Mailing List
Subject: QSDS External Grapple
Date: Friday, April 11, 1997 2:02PM

FROM:    Tommy Grav (SMTP:tommy.grav@astro.uio.no)

TO:      SMTP:isba@goldinc.com
CC:      Traveller Mailing List (SMTP:traveller@MPGN.COM)

SUBJECT: QSDS External Grapple

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------  
 --


According to QSDS you need 1129 square meters surface
to install a external grapple for a 50 dton ship.

According to FF&S you need the ship to be grappled lenght
squared in surface area to use an external grapple.
For a 50 dton ship this is 11.2 squared = 125.44 square meters

Seems to be a mistake in QSDS or?

Tommy Grav
<QUOTE OFF>

hmmm....looks like another failure to covert tons to cubic meters , or vice 
versa, to me.  That same old QSDS 'x14' bug that caused the J-drive 
inflation a couple of months ago. :)  Cant say for sure tho.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 21:50:47 +0200
From: Per Bernhardsson <bard@ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: book request

Dedly@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Well, I was finally got a chance to check out Emperor's Arsenal. Although I
> didn't buy it (Busy with a bidding war on the Auction), I really really liked
> it. I'm not sure when I'll pick it up (my pc's have enough toys to play with)
> but it gave me an idea. I'd posted a few days ago (last week?) that I wanted
> a book that was all about TL advancement. Someone (Hans?) had mentioned that
> the MT Referee's Companion (as opposed to the Manual that I have) might have
> what I was looking for. Of course, being out of print, it would be hard to
> find an availible and affordable copy. So, why not come up with a T4 book on
> TL advancement in various fields (medicine, chemistry, communications,
> transportation, computers, urban infrastructure, etc) written in a style like
> Emperor's Arsenal. Each field could take up about 3-4 pages with the info
> summarized in a table. The text could discuss what was availible and/or
> commonplace at each TL. The CT Ironmongery supplement explained by TL what
> sorts of weaponry were utilized by troops. It also included support vehicles
> and heavy arms (howitzers, grav tanks, etc). I found that to be EXTREMELY
> helpful. Emperor's Arsenal follows in that tradition. CSC is good for
> specific equipment but we don't get to see the whole picture.
> 
> Any thoughts anyone?

First I want to say I'm sorry about the wasted bandwidth with that large
quote, second I'd like to say that I you have an interesting suggestion
there, though I'd rather see a TL chart on the net free of charge, that
would make it easier to correct, and people here could easier come with
suggestions since it could grow dynamically over time as people come up
with new technology and new uses of old tech.

 / Per

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 16:47:00 -0400
From: Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org>
Subject: [none]

<QUOTE ON>

>Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 10:33:41 -0600
>From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
>Subject: Re: Computer Tech

>Bill Prankard wrote:
>>
>> TL-7 Basic machines, Apple II's Commodore 64's etc...
>>

>You mentioned only personal computers. Don't forget that the vast
>majority of computing horsepower in TL7 was "big iron".

Right at TL-7 most computers were, PC's were just at its infant stage.

>> TL-9 This is where we are today, Pentiums, primative VR. Global Data Net,
>> DVD's etc...
>>

>Refresh my poor memory. What's DVD?

Next Step up from CD's--Digital Video Disks, can store entire movies, 10 
times over!

>>  Everything looks very Star Trek-ish (2-D touchboards, Traveller's 
"Dynamic
>> Controls") portable computers are now hand held datapads, the portable 
CPU's
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>We have this now. Seen the Pilot?

Right, I worded it wrong, I meant that the power of most of our modern day 
notebook computers will be the size of our modern day datapads(Newton, BOSS, 
etc..)  Mind you I have seen the latest datpads from "Sharper Image online 
catalog"  It is basicaly a small computer, about 2Mb of Flash RAM, all the 
old windows stlye programs, and can hook up to your pc for up/down loads. 
 In TL-10 this will eventualy become an entire PC system, with cell-modem 
linkup and the whole 9 yards that you can carry in your pocket or holster 
from your belt.

>> Comments, suggestions, thoughts...

>Never mind my mild criticisms, all in all this is good stuff. I'm
>thinking of consolidating all of the suggestions and comments in this
>thread into a TL chart for computer technology. I'll post it to the
>list if there's interest.

I remember a TL list in MT Refs Companion that was very good.  Mind you its 
a bit dated by todays standards re: computers (written in the late 80's) 
according to that list we should be at almost tl-12 for computers, 
holocrystals are tl-13, and I have heard of labs who are working on 
holocrystal storage media at todays tech level!

Funny how reality is stranger than fiction, eh?

Commander X at his fun filled Office Environment,
pumping out web stuff at the old electronic salt mines.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 13:30:10 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: book request

 So, why not come up with a T4 book on
> TL advancement in various fields (medicine, chemistry, communications,
> transportation, computers, urban infrastructure, etc) written in a style like
> Emperor's Arsenal. Each field could take up about 3-4 pages with the info
> summarized in a table. The text could discuss what was availible and/or
> commonplace at each TL. The CT Ironmongery supplement explained by TL what
> sorts of weaponry were utilized by troops. It also included support vehicles
> and heavy arms (howitzers, grav tanks, etc). I found that to be EXTREMELY
> helpful. Emperor's Arsenal follows in that tradition. CSC is good for
> specific equipment but we don't get to see the whole picture. 
> 
> Any thoughts anyone? 

This is an excellent idea.  I'd buy it.  I'd like to see a book on 
"everything you ever wanted to know about tech levels".

It'd be a great reference for detailing worlds and adventures.

I'd like to see encounter tables in it, and a section detailing 
twisted tech levels would be nice--you know, some trader brought 
PGMP's to sell to an Army on a TL-2 world.

I'd also like to see a discussion on worlds, like Pysadi in the 
Aramis subsector of the Spinward Marches, that is rated at a TL 4 but 
has a class C starport.

Is this like visiting a third world country for advanced Imperial 
citizens?  Does the starport keep track of starship cargoes using 
index cards and black boards?  Is cargo shipped to the starport using 
oxen and carts, or is a WWII era truck used?

If the class C starport does use computers, how do they fix them when 
they break down?

How much of the higher technology from the traders in port spill over 
to the local economy?  What devices do they use that, on the surface, 
would seem out of place in a TL 4 society?

One of things that I liked about the EA was that the interior 
illustrations reflected this.  It's easy to think of all planets 
being just like it is here on Earth, but the pics seemed to have a 
very "other-worldly" quality.The clothes they wear, I think, did this 
for me.  I could see the things happening on another planet.

Just some thoughts.   I think that a supplement on TL could be done 
well, and I think that it would be a useful supplement.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 16:02:22 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

>> It's in *everyone*'s best interests to make Trav reality match the 
>> physical universe as closely as possible, minimizing hand-waved 
>> exceptions.  The reason can be expressed as the Law of Unintended 
>> Consequences:  "Every action taken to achieve a goal will also achieve 
>> one or more unintended consequences, which may directly or indirectly 
>> interfere with that goal, or cause greater harm elsewhere." 
> 
> 
>No No No No No. I repeat NO. 
> 
>Dont lock us in to a universe where we can not do what we want, just
because the laws of 
>physics. 

[snip]

>If realism disallows something that I want in my story, F**K realism!
Science Fiction has two 
>parts ... the science AND fiction. If someone says that it cant work ,
invent some bullsh*tium 
>to justify it, like jump drives! (Jump drives are a plot device , and
should be treated as 
>such!!!!) 
> 
>Rember the first law of gaming : keep the punters enertained. 

It is so good to hear a voice of nonreason on here from time to time :)  I
agree, we get too 
wrapped up in why something isn't possible and forget that this is a GAME.
When I see the
replies that "well, if we hand-wave that, then my players will run with it
and build perpetual
motion machines and super planet killing weapons and green skinned android
women, etc."
I have to ask the question: Am I the only GM whose players aren't interested
in ruining the
game at every opportunity? I don't know about y'all, but I play with a close
group of friends
who are more interested in a good story and having a fun time adventuring
than in rules-
lawyering their way into being declared BooFoo God-Munchkin of the Universe.
And yes, my
players consist of a pharmacist, a physics major, another nurse, etc.,
people who can and 
have pointed out problems with game vs real life matters. But they are also
intelligent enough
to realize that breaking the game will not be fun for anyone.

And often we get long sessions of hacking out "what-if" scenarios after a
game. Depending 
on how much it bends game balance, they might be allowed an adventure
campaign to go
research a new device or theory to find it they can create something. Or, if
it is something 
like a perpetual motion machine, a quick trip down to the local Imperial
University might reveal
that Porter's Third Law states that using thrusters to push against the
subspace ethereal 
web causes a mysterious loss of heat and kinetic energy into Dimension 32.
Where it goes
and what happens to it there might be the source of another adventure; that
Empress Wave
thingy had to come from somewhere.... <g>

**********************************************************
  Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
 CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 16:26:31 -0400
From: russcm@zoomnet.net (Christopher M. Russell)
Subject: Re: Missiles+fighters II

> 
>> Something to notice, the missile doesn't actually need to expend fuel until
>> the terminal phase of the flight. It only needs the fuel to correct for aim
>> and to get a final burst of speed near the end of the flight.
>
>Yes, exactly.
> 
>> Initially, the missile would have the heading and velocity of the launching
>> platform, much like a tossed bomb. NOTE this will work only on a platform
>
>Yup.
>
>> capable of high speed runs, so not likely any capital ships using this
tactic.
>
>Wrong.  Again, traveller has always has big ships with high
>g-ratings.  This means that they can get a decent velocity up, and
>slow back down asquickly as any smaller craft.  Traditionally
>traveller military ships always have a g-rating equal to their
>g-comp for that TL.

Capital ships usually are moving much slower in a battle situation so they
can more efficiently stay inside the sphere of the battle. For a capital
ship to maintain a high velocity, it would have to frequently circle in
place. High speed is not always usefull if eventually you have to reduce
that speed quickly, which capital ships cannot do as easilly as smaller vessles.

My point related to high speed runs, which means starting from a slow speed,
quickly getting to high speed, then sheading that velocity once the egress
is complete, useful for docking with a mother ship. I did not state that
capital ships are incapable of high speed, just not well suited for tactics
of that nature.

>
>> If an initial burst of speed is needed (like for launching from a capital
>> ship), a first stage or a short fuel burn can be included to give that
>> boost, adding to the initial velocity.
> 
>Why is the big ship moving slower than the small one?

In this reference, it isn't, but it may not be firing in the same direction
as it's heading (can you say turret?).

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 16:37:34 -0400
From: russcm@zoomnet.net (Christopher M. Russell)
Subject: Re: IR masking.

>Can't do that as IR emissions are random blackbody radiation while sound is
>more like lasers ie single to a few different frequencies. The sound
>damping you describe is regularly done on transformers to dampen the cool
>50 Hz (60 in the US) hum they emit. This technique does not work on noise
>however and IR emissions can be thought of as radiation noise. Also the
>technique when applied to IR would break the conservation of energy law.
>
>The following laws of physics are INMSHO not breakable by SF handwaving:
>Conservation of energy
>Conservation of charge
>Conservation of momentum

Actually the technique I'm refering to is either being tested for use on or
being used to dampen sound noise on some luxury cars, and I hear it is quite
effective in blocking out noise from inner - city trafic. Not 100%
eliminated, but reduced to a more tolerable level.

However, the type of dampening I am refering to is from known, rateable
sources coming from the ship, like the power plant, etc. This will work
somewhat similar to shining two differently colored lights togeather and
getting the result matching the average of their two frequencies. Example,
shine red and voilet togeather and you get something in the range of green,
I believe. The IR masking would be adveraging the frequency of the first
with a matching frequency, just 180 degrees out of phase (or as close as
possible to 180 out).

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 16:46:03 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

>How about touch screens (Star Trek style) and perhaps even holographic
>keyboards. It's not something we would get used too very quickly, but it
>might work. Come to think of it solid holographic keyboards (Star Trek
>holodeck). 

All that could work very well, but it's still using a keyboard for data
entry. It
was the remark that high tech level comps "definitely wouldn't have key-
boards" that I took issue with. Voice entry won't work for everything.

>Another way to fix the problem with being overheard is some
>type of security field that blocks of your little cubicle from in/out
>going sounds.

And I agree with this as well. I just raised the point that this won't be 
practical everywhere, and unless someone can come up with the 
Pocket Cone of Silence (Famille Spofulam, perhaps <g>), you will still
need a manual point of data entry.

**********************************************************
  Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
 CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 97 16:17:36 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: canned Hiver larvae and space fighters

On 04/10/97 at 10:01 PM,  shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) said:

> > However, most ships won't be able to apply 6g anywhere except along their
> > bow to stern "spine."  They will have to turn to apply thrust at some angle
> > to their previous vector.  The *time* it takes to turn will limit their
> > lateral displacement.  Let's say that the ship can turn 90 degrees in 1
> > second: This means if it turns away from its former heading under power for
> > the entire second it will have applied its acceleration along an arc from
> > its former heading to directly port or starboard (to stay in 2 dimensions
> > for the moment). The volume that the ship can be in is now *much* less than
> > 60 meters in diameter, it would be shaped like a sector of a sphere...I
> > think. ;->

> Actually, it's likely to be a *weird* shape, sort of like a cornucopia.

I tried plotting it out on the computer and got a shape that looked sort of
like a fat football (rugby or American style). 

> > ??Formula something like??
> >
> > V= 1/6(pi)r^3  V = 1/6(3.1416)15^3 = 1767m
> >
> > The 10m sphere has a volume of 524m, so you have a 30% prob of success on
> > any shot placed AT RANDOM, and a much better chance with a little
> > intellegent prediction of your target's future course.  
> >
> > Or am I totally out in left field here?

> I'd say you are on the right track. I think it'd take calculus (which I
> never learned) or some messy numerical integration (which I might be able
> pull off if I got desperate) to determine the exact answer.

I've forgotten too much of my math to try working out an exact answer, but
I think the formula I posted above should be pretty close, maybe a little
high). So, I'm going to use it until somebody comes up with a better one.

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 97 17:12:00 -0500
From: jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN)
Subject: Re: [T97#1165] TL Advancement

aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton) writes...

T::>In-Reply-To: <970404130908_-1000817824@emout06.mail.aol.com>

T::><< The expanded Legal and TL digits as presented in the RICE papers (toast in
 ::>honor of Jeff Zeitlin and the other RICE authors) IMO are an excellent idea.
 ::>Although it provides too much data for the general UPP, it is an excellent
 ::>option for refs who wish to delve further into world creation. >>

T::>Haven't seen this. What was wrong with the DGP system?

 Absolutely nothing, IMO.  That's why I adopted it (the DGP
 system) unchanged for the extended world profile in the RICE
 Papers. Which is what I said during the previous pass through
 this thread; obviously there are some propagation
 problems/delays...

==========================================================================
Jeff Zeitlin                                      jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com
- ---
  OLXWin 1.00b  Everyone hates me because I'm paranoid.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 17:47:06 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII (longish)

>The reson is that I play with scientifically literate people and if I made
>some stupid plotdevice SF shit (HEPLAR for instance) they will find
>loopholes and contradictions that make it hard for me as a ref but worst of

I'll ask what I asked in an earlier reply: Am I the only ref who's players
aren't 
engaged in a contest of "let's beat the rules"? Are they not able to handle a
rational discussion of "Look guys, this is the way it is, and to do it any other
way would break the game and spoil everyone's fun"? 

>all their belief in the Traveller universe gets damaged and they get
>plucked out into the real world and start thinking about their characters
>as skillpoints, defenserolls etc instead of real living humans/aliens.

I'll come back to this....

>Actually RPG follows the same rules as fiction ie:
>The stories/adventures has to be consistent with the genre and most people
>agree Traveller is supposed to be hard SF so you're allowed to break one
>law of physics but then you'll have to live with the consequences. Actually
>Traveller break quite a few laws of physics but the duty of the mailing
>lists is to come up with fixes or handwaves to make scientifically literate
>people still believe in the universe.

Funny, in all my lit classes I never saw the rule allowing SF to break only one
law of physics <g>. I think your last sentence above captures the problem here:

*lets whisper this now, so's to not get a lot of folks upset*

*looks around carefully*

*shhhhhhh*

Traveller is a lot more space opera than science fact....

The constant threads about thrusters, heat radiation, fighters vs capital ships,
0.1c rocks, IR masking, sensors, the broken to the point of non-existence
economic
system, the alternate characteristic and task systems, the believability of
EDU as
a stat, jump space, etc. seem to prove to me that the entire point of this
list is to
handwave science fact into a predominently space opera game.

>should take a look at a great rpg in the space opera genre: It is called
>Star Wars has great artwork high drama wacky science and technology and
>playable rules. What it does NOT have is internal consistency but that
>should be no problem; the story is king, if I want small kuddly TL 0
>teddybears beat the crap out of "An entire legion of my best troops" that's
>OK because my players are romantic TV-junkie morons.

Cutting out the caffeine are we? Put on your little brother's shorts this
morning?
I'm sorry to hear that about your players, mine include a vet, a pharmacist, a 
physics major, an RN (as am I, with a BFA as well for balance :) ) and two
science-
oriented high schoolers (YES, I'm doing MY PART 
to bring Traveller to the Nintendo generation <g>) whose belief in either
the real
or game worlds won't come crashing to a halt if I tell them "No."

>Oops a little rash perhaps but I say: Those wanting to play Space Opera do
>it but don't come dragging with some kind of universal law that says
>science andd tech is just plot devices because that is the MAIN reason why
>most movies/TV is so bad.

Then please don't come up with universal rules for Traveller that state that it
has to be hard core and not space opera. The only universal rule for Traveller
that I think everyone agrees has to be there is "jump takes about a week"  <g>
And the universal law is "You do whatever is FUN for you and your players".
If your players like 
realism spelled out to the point of rolling 20+ dice for one character's turn in
a 6-second combat round, then more power to y'all. I hope TNE or SpaceMaster
is to your liking. But this would cause my players to have that crash into the 
world of stat sheets and dice-rolling that you complained about above.

> In space opera science and tech is plotdevices
>but that is one genre out of many. The reason Space Opera is so popular is
>that we live in an undereducated world where most people equate science
>with magic.

Which we have in this game as well, but apparently if we slap a TL 25 on it 
and invoke the name of Grandfather, the gearheads don't seem to notice.
And please don't maike generalized  statements about the education,
intelligence,
or penis size of people who enjoy genres that don't interest you. This could
easily turn into a split-up war like the CT vs TNE one w/ the Hard SF vs Space
Opera fans. I love all the weapons and equipment the gearheads put on the
list. I also steal and use a lot of the stuff that has far less basis in
science fact, 
as well. There's plenty of room on this list.

> My Traveller players have been, astronomers, programmers,
>chemists, fighterpilots, cops, astrophyscists etc and I have to run a
>universe that seems believable to them.

As do we all. But in my case, my players don't want pseudo-science in the
guise of hardcore shoved down their collective throat either (ever design a
small firearm in FFS? Or a motorcycle? A perfect example of the seeming
belief that if we can just throw on enough gobbledy-gook, it'll be realistic).

**********************************************************
  Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
 CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 16:59:35 -0500
From: "K.C. Komosky" <umkomosk@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Subject: Rimward of Solomani rim...

Rimward of the Solomani Rim is Aldebaran. Rimward of THAT is Malorn

K.C. Komosky
umkomosk@cc.umanitoba.ca

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 16:46:15 -0700
From: Danny_M._Moody@mailhost.bridge.com (Danny M. Moody)
Subject: Re: Computer Tech

Erwin Fritz wrote:
> 
> Refresh my poor memory. What's DVD?

Digital Versatile Disk, or Digital Video Disk.  I like the former better, 
because you can use it for much more than mere video.

There's a FAQ at:

http://www.videodiscovery.com/vdyweb/dvd/dvdfaq.html

        -Vanya

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 18:14:32 -0400
From: russcm@zoomnet.net (Christopher M. Russell)
Subject: Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)

>And supposedly, the computers on the Shuttle are still using ferrite core
>memory.  Supposedly each of the computers is less powerful than a 386.
>Anyone know for certain?

Even scarier, they were made by Apple!

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 97 17:14:48 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

On 04/11/97 at 02:14 PM,  dadams@tig.com.au said:

> > It's in *everyone*'s best interests to make Trav reality match the 
> > physical universe as closely as possible, minimizing hand-waved 
> > exceptions.  
  
> No No No No No. I repeat NO. 

Tell us how you *really* feel! ;->
  
> Dont lock us in to a universe where we can not do what we want, just
> because the laws of  physics. 

As a leading anti-canonist, I'm against *locking* anyone into a specific
universe.  OTOH, I'm personally not in favor of games where "anything"
goes.

I think Internal Consistency is extremely important to an rpg, not
necessarily reality (tm), just a game universe that is internally
self-consistent.  The thing about Traveller I've always liked is that it
provides that internal consistency, and if you follow the 'canon' closely
the GM can be assured that the game developers have created a well thought
out universe.

I, of course, being a heretic at heart *have* to build my own
universes.  ;-> In doing so, it's my responsibility to think very carefully
about how my universe works.  It's a responsibility I take on happily...I
enjoy it.  Some people might call me a gearhead, because of this, but I
don't think of myself that way.

> Why cant I have a wooden ship? Howard Chaykin did in "Ironwolf", and
> Tenchi Muyo has them as  well. Why cant I have a fighter that takes out a
> capital ship? Babylon 5 and Star Wars does.  Why cant I have artificial
> uturine replicators and bringing people back from the dead like  Lous
> McMasters Bujold does? 

Sure, why not!  I'm slowly working toward a game with "wooden ships and
ether propellors."  OTOH, I'm not willing to just toss them out there.  I
have to know *why* and *how* those wooden ship fly?

If you develop your own game-universe they I think you have to decide how
it works, and explain it's rules.  Now, think about how your explanation
affect everything *else* in your universe:  power production, weapons,
communications, people's everyday lives, and everything else.  And don't
expect to just handwave it off, because you can expect your players to
think up uses, effects, and tricks, for every variation you introduce that
you never thought of.  They will plow through any cracks you leave open,
affecting the balance of the game and altering the story in ways that you
haven't
considered.

> I want to tell a story, and the strong thing about traveller is not the
> technolagy (which  always sucked, but is changing with Gods own Games
> Designer Greg Porter), not the science  (which has not always been great
> but it was workable), but the rich and detailed background.  

Hee!  I like Greg's work too, but I'm not as down on Traveller tech/science
as you seem to be.  Like I said, I'm a heretic, I toss much of the
"detailed background" right out the window.  The science and technology I
don't toss...modify, tinker with, but don't toss.

What *I've* always used was the consistent *framework* of Traveller as a
springboard from which to explore other alternatives.
Traveller's framework includes:  slow communications; 1 week
jump/cut off from the universe FTL travel; easy STL insystem travel; cheap,
plentiful power; automation/cybernation/computers that were big, slow and
clunky; gravity control; ancient ruins; and humans everywhere.  In my
games, I usually stay pretty consistent with this framework.  Where I vary
any part of the framework (either
culturally, scientifically or technologically), I think *long* and hard
about the how and why of my variation before applying it.
  
So, in sum my opinion is that realism in a game is how well it maintains
its internal consistency.  Monopoly, the game, isn't the reality of the
real estate business in Atlantic City, after all, but it *is* a consistant
game-universe with a format, board, and rules that form an understandable
and consistent game-reality within which people can play.  RPG's should
strive for just such a consistent and understandable game-reality.  You can
let the game designers create it for you, or you can create it yourself,
but your game should have one.


Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1178
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest       Friday, April 11 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1179



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 
Re: Realism in Traveller
Re: Solomani Rim system names
Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)
Re: Realism vs. Play Value
The Imperial Yacht
Re: IR masking
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII
Re: Task System
Re: Beyond the [solomani] rim...
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Realism and gearheading
Re: Ship design Contract competition
Re: Solomani Rim Steller Objects?
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII
Re: Realism vs. Play Value

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 18:22:17 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 

>Slight problem. As Vernor Vinge and others point out, within a century
>the technology will be *beyond* anything we could imagine (Vinge calls
>it "The Singularity"). 

[snip of example of high tech mining and manufacturing}

>And this makes 90% of Traveller impossible or silly. And a game based
>on this *realistic* projection wouldn't sell. Because most folks either
>wouldn't believe it, or couldn't understand it.

Which is why I can't understand why everyone gets so caught up all the
time in the "Hey, you can't do that, it ain't realistic!!" arguments that flow
back and forth across this list. Even the more blatant violations of the
laws of physics, it ain't like Traveller doesn't have enough on its own <g>.
Reminds me of something I always wanted to see on Star Trek:

<Scotty> " I canna break the laws of physics, Cap'n!!"

<Kirk> "But Mr. Scott, you did the last 11 weeks, why not now?"

**********************************************************
  Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
 CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 15:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Realism in Traveller

Responding to Anders Backman

>Oops a little rash perhaps but I say: Those wanting to play Space Opera do
>it but don't come dragging with some kind of universal law that says
>science andd tech is just plot devices because that is the MAIN reason why
>most movies/TV is so bad. In space opera science and tech is plotdevices
>but that is one genre out of many. The reason Space Opera is so popular is
>that we live in an undereducated world where most people equate science
>with magic. My Traveller players have been, astronomers, programmers,
>chemists, fighterpilots, cops, astrophyscists etc and I have to run a
>universe that seems believable to them.

The players I referee are by profession: a grocery clerk, an unemployed
technical illustrator, a student/stock crewman, and an MIS tech.

No "intelligentsia" among them, and ALL of whom love good space opera, but
guess what? They all _insist_ on as much technical accuracy as possible.

We all have a fairly good understanding of the laws of physics and a grasp
and interest in what may become the technological realities of our future.
We also respect the laws of physics, which, in our world, means TL-0 teddy
bears don't stand a chance against armored troops. <g>

Traveller, by nature, appeals more to people who want a fairly large dose
of reality in their roleplaying. We play by TNE mechanics because we
believe them to be the closest to reality that the four incarnations of the
game have produced. There will be those who play Traveller like they play
Star Wars, but, like trying to use a crescent wrench to hammer a nail,
these people usually find that they're using the wrong game to achieve the
effect they want.

Best,

Chris Griffen

===================================================
Keeper of the Flame. Traveller player since 1980.

http://www.cris.com/~Cgriffen/traveller/deneb.html



- --------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Griffen                      Phone: (408) 527-7189
Cisco Systems, Inc.                      Fax:   (408) 527-0452
Knowledge Products                       cgriffen@cisco.com

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 15:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Solomani Rim system names

Mark Seemann wrote:

>No, usually the system takes it's name after the mainworld. I.e. the Terra
>system takes it's name after Terra, but the star is called Sol.
>
>Traveller Alien module 6 'Solomani' has a World Index on pages 28-29 which
>amongst other things lists a lot of stars and in what hex they are placed
>in the Solomani Rim.

True, but a lot of the time the system is either:

- -- Named after the star

     -or-

- -- We can assume the mainworld is named after the star and in
   turn the system is named after the mainworld

Take Fomalhaut, Altair and Sirius for instance.

Best,

Chris Griffen

===================================================
Keeper of the Flame. Traveller player since 1980.

http://www.cris.com/~Cgriffen/traveller/deneb.html


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Griffen                      Phone: (408) 527-7189
Cisco Systems, Inc.                      Fax:   (408) 527-0452
Knowledge Products                       cgriffen@cisco.com

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 16:05:47 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Christopher M. Russell wrote:

> >And supposedly, the computers on the Shuttle are still using ferrite core
> >memory.  Supposedly each of the computers is less powerful than a 386.
> >Anyone know for certain?
> 
> Even scarier, they were made by Apple!
> 
> 

Oh, so THAT'S why they're still working! ;-)

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 18:24:11 +0000
From: twolf@unix.tfs.net
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value

>  
> However, the story is NOT king.  The IMAGINATION is.  We are
> attempting to look into the future, and determine what those
> people/civilizations will be capable of.  How can we know?  Is there
> any way that we can actually know what they will have 2000 years
> from now??? NO, THERE IS NOT!  
> 
>  The gearheads, such as Anders Backman, are so deeply rooted in
>  their
> belief in Physics, and science in general, that they have allowed
> them to pull the plug on their imaginations.  How one can play a RPG
> without imagination is beyond me.  By the way, Mr. Backman, we are
> all very impressed with the list of "scientists" that you have as
> players. Ooooo......Ahhhhhhh.  
> 
<Loud Clapping>
Here, here, Chap...good show.

JD
Twolf

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 16:40:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>
Subject: The Imperial Yacht

  I was watching the BBC cable channel the other night (tv is fun
whenyou're in a different country), and I watched a special of the British
royal yacht Britannia.  Rather interesting - the ship is Royal Navy, but
operated not as a warship but to support the diplomacy of the English
government.  The film was great - a visit to South Africa by the Queen,
with a reception for government officials and a later tour of the yacht by
business people.

  So what is the Traveller connection?  Well, it made me think that Cleon
I really need a yacht.  Exactly what sort of ship it is, well, I'm not
sure.  I took a stab with the QSDS rules, using the biggest hull included
(5000T), and the results were interesting.  A J3 M4 ship with no
streamlining (four 100T boats to scoop fuel) ran to more than 2500 MCr.
This included no weapons (Basketball is a peaceful planet!) since this is
a cerimonial ship, though a factor 8 meson screen didn't take up all that
much room.  even with a marine contingent of 40 and 50 stewards, there was
room for a 40 ton suite for Cleon, 200 tons of staterooms for his staff,
and a 300 ton reception hall/dining room and 100 ton informal reception
hall.  Total crew is about 150, and the ship has a nice sickbay,
engineering and vehicle shops, and top ot the line sensors and
communications.

  I'd be interested in other ideas as to what such a ship might contain.
I didn't include weapons since such a ship would likely only travel with a
big escort of combat vessels.  I did include a small (100T) J3 M6 ship in
the hangers with the fuel scoopers so that Cleon can exit stage right if
he wants to - since it is identical extenally to the fuel scoopers he can
slip away without crearting a fuss.

______________________________
Dr. Mark Clark
Oregon Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 20:22:42 -0400
From: russcm@zoomnet.net (Christopher M. Russell)
Subject: Re: IR masking

>A lot of the analysis here depends on the one presumption which
>I find questionable.  That excess energy must be lost of passive
>black body emission.  The fact is that one can certainly see
>a ship masking itself by either using a force emission at
>a wavelength that is better masked by the background (like
>the interstellar microwave background) and by emitting the
>energy on a tight beam away from the enemy.
>
>The only requirement that thermodynamics imposes is that
>you spend energy to do this.
>
Just because you spend energy to mask energy doesn't mean that you are
defeating your purpose. The energy that you spend to mask the infrared is an
infrared signal that it emitted in a way that, when the two interacts with
each other, their properties cancel each other out.

When a wave (such as an infrared signal) interacts with another wave that is
equal to it in all properties except being 180 degreed out of phase, the
result is both waves being canceled out.

Remember, in mathematics, jsut because you add something togeather doesn't
mean the result is a larger number, you can add a negative value. Same with
energy masking, if you add an energy type that is inverse to the energy
present, some or all the energy present looses magnitude.

Recall my method will not render a ship invisible or mask all the infrared
signal that comes from the ship, only the signals that are generated by
known sources. It will not be useful for masking reflected heat, since by
the time this is detected, it's too late.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 00:56:14 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 08:33:56 -0700, you wrote:

> why does T4 persist in using a 2D map for sectors?  I know, I
> know, it supposed to be just an abstraction.  Still...

One word... "canon".  Do you REALLY want to redraw every "official"
sector in the Traveller universe in 3D?  Trade routes would change, as
would political boarders.

Like 2D combat, 2D star charts are just easier to deal with for most
people :)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 20:56:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

>>TL12-15 computers definitely won't have any keyboards
>
>Oh? and what do you suggest using for imput in crowded starport lounges
>or in lecture halls where you don't want to disturb/be overheard by others?
>Pens? I can type a lot faster than I can write, and with less strain. I
won't
>
>even mention legibility... :)
>
How about VERY sophisticated lip reading? Before you laugh, if a newton can
recognize MY handwriting, lip reading is not far off.
My greatest fear is that a Windows variant with a touch-senstive screen will
become the standard. The horror...
dsf

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 00:56:16 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 14:14:22 , you wrote:

> ** Reply to note from Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net> Thu, 10 Apr 1997=
 15:14:34 -0700 (PDT)=20
> =20
> > It's in *everyone*'s best interests to make Trav reality match the=20
> > physical universe as closely as possible, minimizing hand-waved=20
> > exceptions.  The reason can be expressed as the Law of Unintended=20
> > Consequences:  "Every action taken to achieve a goal will also =
achieve=20
> > one or more unintended consequences, which may directly or indirectly=
=20
> > interfere with that goal, or cause greater harm elsewhere."=20
> =20
> No No No No No. I repeat NO.=20
> =20
> Dont lock us in to a universe where we can not do what we want, just =
because the laws of=20
> physics.=20

He did specifically use the word *minimize*.  What's wrong with
keeping the "pseudo-science" down to a minimum?  It just forces you to
think more :)

> Take Babylon 5. While it is the most realistic show on tv, it has =
things which are impossable.=20
> Like instant full duplex interstellar communications, batteries that =
fit in the hand that=20
> can heat materials to plasma. Not to mention jump drives.=20

=46or Traveller, jump drives and high-gee maneuver drives are necessary
to promote the RPG.  While other games have tried to do without these
bits if pseudo-science (locking the game universe into a single solar
system with travel times measured in months), those that do cater to
an *extremely* small audience.

> The reason for this is for the telling of the story. The story is king =
in RPG, the science is=20
> a handle, a plot device that allows the story to flow. =20

Story IS important... but it shouldn't be the dominating factor at the
expense of tossing away "basic" physical laws.  Otherwise, you begin
to play another genre-- Science Fantasy.  Like the "Dark Side of the
=46orce", Science Fantasy is an easier path to take, and one which is
difficult to retreat from if you make too many compromises :)

To take this point one step further, one of our players likes to ref
"High Fantasy" (we're talking about really wild and fantastic stuff).
The laws of physics in his universe are so bizarre that sometimes I
don't even know where I stand.  It can be quite "uninteresting"
sometimes.

Science isn't a "handle" or "plot device".  Being based on physics, it
is the "foundation" of any universe-- real or otherwise.

> Why cant I have a wooden ship? Howard Chaykin did in "Ironwolf", and =
Tenchi Muyo has them as=20
> well. Why cant I have a fighter that takes out a capital ship? Babylon =
5 and Star Wars does.=20
> Why cant I have artificial uturine replicators and bringing people back=
 from the dead like=20
> Lous McMasters Bujold does?=20

Tenchi Muyo also had Cabbits, creatures that looked like rabbits, that
could turn into huge mile-long spacecraft powered by carrots.  This is
NOT science fiction, but science fantasy.

As for why you can't have a fighter that takes out a capital ship...
you CAN if you want (which, by Traveller standards, would require a
bit of hand waving).  But then you have to come up with a reason why
the bigger capital ships aren't slinging these BB-killing weapons
directly at each other (which will probably require more hand waving).
All this hand waving eventually adds up, and you end up with more and
more loopholes that you have to fix (with even more hand waving).
This is why some players and referees like to break as few physical
laws as possible-- to keep things from escalating out of control.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 21:00:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Re: Task System

You forgot:
Get Real- 2D1000
and 
Mcgyver Doesn't Dare-Slap the player upside the head with "starships"
dsf

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 20:15:38 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com>
Subject: Re: Beyond the [solomani] rim...

Quoth Solomani:
> Whats the name of the sector "below" (away from core) the Solomani Rim (as
> looking down on a 2 dimensional map:)

From DGP's invaluable SOLOMANI AND ASLAN (Roger Sanger, where are you? :-):


 Reaver's   "Diabei"     Diaspora      Old       Hinter-
  Deep      (Daibei?)                Expanses    -worlds


  Dark       Magyar      SOLOMANI     Alpha       Spica
 Nebula                    RIM       "Crucis"
                                     (Leonis?)

 Ustral      Canopus    Aldebaran     Neworld    Langere
Quadrant


 Banners    Hanstone     Malorn        Hadji      Storr


- ----------------------------*------------------------*------------------------
 Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett  |"Nullum magnum ingenium | GURPS fan, Amiga user,
http://www.io.com/~jlockett | sine mixtura dementiae | Shakespearean scholar,
  Email: jlockett@io.com    | fuit." -- Seneca       | actor and director.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 21:30:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

Dogbert suggested rings on the fingers and a visor. 
dsf

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 18:30:13 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Realism and gearheading

>Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 13:14:51 -0500
>From: Jeff Harvey <jharvey@nlci.com>

Originally, I was going to let this pass, but then I decided this was a
personal attack on the gearheads, and I am in a bad mood.  Psych up.

>I can't even believe that I am responding to this, because there is NO
>WAY to change anyone's opinion.  However, my intelligence has been
>insulted, and that seems reason enough.

You were insulting enough in response to deserve a reply.

>	I have to say that I agree, to a certain extent, with Darryl Adams. 
>However, the story is NOT king.  The IMAGINATION is.

Yep.  It is.  There is, however, another element you seem to have
forgotten, along with a movie industry that encourages people to cross
molten lava and risk death by explosion to save a dog (Dante's Peak and
Independence Day.)  That element is - suspension of disbelief.

I spent a fair number of years getting decent at physics, math, and
engineering.  I do not demand that a game or a movie know as much about the
subject as I do.  I do, however, demand that it not throw something at me
that is so obviously bogus that I cannot even bother to watch.

Here is a list of things that blow suspension of disbelief:

Outrunning an explosion
Seeing and ducking from an explosion closer than several hundred feet
Recovering from a knockout blow instantly
Falling from a great height on a regular basis, and not being even slowed down
Taking a bullet and continuing to operate.  Allowed in special cases, but
not for an average person.
Having something that leads to ultimate weapons, or perpetual motion, or
free energy, or whatever, and having nobody try to make use of it.

>  We are attempting
>to look into the future, and determine what those people/civilizations
>will be capable of.  How can we know?  Is there any way that we can
>actually know what they will have 2000 years from now??? NO, THERE IS
>NOT!  

No, but when we are presented with a bit of fake tech, any idiot can at
least guess what the ramifications of it are.  The more training you have,
the better your guesses are going to be.  Your guesses have to be good
enough to preserve SoD.

>	The gearheads, such as Anders Backman, are so deeply rooted in their
>belief in Physics, and science in general, that they have allowed them
>to pull the plug on their imaginations.

Go learn more science, you might find that it does not really harm your
imagination.  Most of Ander's complaints of late have been about things
that are just not arguable.  You can make some hand wave magic to change
the way it works, but then you get to live with the consequences.

Example - in Traveller, as written, fighters do not work for attacking a
battleship.  You can make it work, if you add a fighters-only weapon, or
add a special M-drive, but as written, it cannot be done.  If you add a
special M-drive, then you just changed the world, and you are going to have
to rethink a lot of stuff.  My players would not try to ruin the game, but
they well might make it a life quest to find the mystery factor to put life
back in fighters.

Or, you can just hand wave again, and say that "they never thought of
that."  This does not go over as well, because entire sessions revolving
around technology and research vanish in a haze of "Do Not Enter."

>  How one can play a RPG without
>imagination is beyond me.  By the way, Mr. Backman, we are all very
>impressed with the list of "scientists" that you have as players. 
>Ooooo......Ahhhhhhh.  

His list reminds me of my group.  We play a game centered around
personalities and interactions, but I am well aware that if I bring up the
idea of a kinetic kill weapon, or the ramifications of a nuclear damper,
then the players are going to "get it."  I cannot bring up a stealth field
without the players wanting to make use of it in a commercial way.  They
are not malicious, but they think that I, like them, have tried to make the
world consistent, with a reasonable number of changes needed to make it
work with the assumed tech.  From there, the principle of "People are not
STUPID" rules.

>	Playing a RPG is a form of escapism, just like reading a book is
>escapism, and watching a movie is escapism.  It allows a person to
>submerge themselves into another reality for a few hours at a time. 

Fine.  But if you are going to escape in a way that at least pretends that
science works, then you had best pay a bit of attention to it.  If a player
KNOWS that we can detect a golf ball in earth orbit now, then some kind of
stealth field must exist if there is going to be any kind of sneaking up on
a planet.

>That is the reason that we play RPG's.  The world as we know it SUCKS!

Get a different world.  I am pretty annoyed with mine right now, but I am
sending out resumes.  In the mean time, relax.

>We can't change it, so we leave it for a while.  Anyone who denies that
>this is true, is lying.  So, now you tell me that I have to play
>according to what is possible in our real world.  I don't think so.

No.  But if you want a Traveller player to care about what you are talking
about, you have to stick close enough to canon that what you are saying is
interesting.  Otherwise, you have nothing to say to the people on the
Traveller Mailing List.

> As
>Mr. Adams asked, explain the physics behind the Jump Drive.  I, as soon
>as it is possible, would like the formula's and equasions that prove
>that Jump Space is there, and that the Jump Drive is possible.

Don't be disingenuous.  They give enough operational parameters in the
books to know how it can be used.  You have some idea of what it means, and
if they physics is a bit funky, fine.  You accept it as part of the game,
and everything it implies.  Players are right to ask whether a jump drive
needs the mass, needs the volume, or needs to H2 in their fuel, because it
makes a big difference when they are trying to wilderness refuel a jump drive.

If science works save for the MacGuffin jump drive, then perhaps you can
answer questions about it.

Every game has to be clear about what works and what doesn't, or the
players are just along for the ride.

...

>Well, I've said enough.  You can play Traveller the way that
>you want to, and I'll play the way I want to.  That is what this
>discussion will come down to in the long run.  

Likely, but while it is just a game, it _is_ a science fiction game.  It is
regrettably close to space opera, but it at least claims some science.  To
the extent that you want it to work, you fix the broken bits that impact
you.  I have a mathematician, a drummer, and an astrophysicist playing, so
I need to make the space tech and computer tech work in order to preserve
their suspension of disbelief.  They do not give a damn about the skill
system, the stats, or anything else which is assigned by fiat in the
typical game.  They also expect me to work out combat results, and not to
trouble them with it.

Your group might well need a different set of things to work for SoD.

In traveller, it is very likely that the pieces that need fixing are those
related to the science, because a great deal of it is broken.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 01:45:21 +0000
From: Garry Ward <Garry.E.Ward@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Ship design Contract competition

At 03:10 PM 4/10/97 +0000, you wrote:
><snip>
>
>I got to thinking and realized that there are jobs for a small, fast
>ship *besides* scouting and shooting holes in things. Think of these as
>being something like the "motor lifeboats" that the US Coast Guard
>uses. You can base them places you can't base a larger ship, they are
>cheap enough that you can have a lot more of them, and they can be
>there giving aid while larger ships are still running down checklists. 
>
>So, I'd like the THUDD designers to consider a "search and rescue"
>variant of their designs as part of the competition. If the THUDD folks
>aren't willing, then how about someone designing one anyway?
>
>-- 
>Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
> shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
>leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort
>

Term I have used is "Recon and Rescue" or RnRs. If I could get 28 hours out
of a 24 hour day, I might try to participate this design. Always did want to
make a formal definition of a useful tool.

Garry

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 22:04:09 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: Solomani Rim Steller Objects?

Solomani writes: 

>Has anyone (anyone at all:) created any info for any system withing the
>solomani rim?  In particular im after planet names/UPP within each system,
>like Earth for Sol.  I have info for Sol, but no other system.

   Beyond the Hale-Harshman data, there isn't that much.  Not even the
old classic Traveller adventures that take place there go into any real
detail.  I planned on working up of all the systems in the Sol subsector
in the near future for Children of Earth.  At the moment, all I have is
a rough draft of the Prometheus system.  I'll post it here within the
next few days.  

Regards,

Harold

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 02:11:40 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 16:02:22 -0400, you wrote:

> that Porter's Third Law states that using thrusters to push against the
> subspace ethereal=20
> web causes a mysterious loss of heat and kinetic energy into Dimension =
32.
> Where it goes
> and what happens to it there might be the source of another adventure; =
that
> Empress Wave
> thingy had to come from somewhere.... <g>

I never really liked thrusters much, except as an easy fix to the
problem of bringing along enough fuel, but I like where this is going
:)

This might explain the appearance of the mysterious ship that you've
just found floating in the inner Oort Cloud, showing all the signs of
a vessel melted & slagged by the intense heat caused by mis-jumping
through the dangerous Dimension 32...

Nice idea, Paul!

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 02:11:42 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 12:14:53 -0700, you wrote:

> What are the viabilities of "dispersing" your signature. I'm a computer
> marketing geek, so forgive my vagueness here. I am going to go =
hypothetical
> with what I understand from your posts.
>=20
> Theory:
> A heat signature from a 100 ton craft is very noticable, partly becuase=
 you
> have that much heat in that little space.=20
> Background space has a certain amount of heat sources and "tides".
> Genertated from local stars, planets, space debis, dust clouds, etc.
>=20
> If the above theories are true, then would it be possible to bleed your=
 heat
> over a larger area?=20
> Example, the afore mentioned 100 ton ship has the ability to spread its=
 heat
> signature out over an area of space 10-20 times greater than its actual=
 area.

In order for this to work, th ship would have to deploy something with
mass (mass being necessary to hold or contain the vented heat).  It
could be done.

> I could see two things happening if this were feasible.=20
> 1- If detected the heat signature is spread out making a hard lock more
> dificult.

Not really harder to detect, except at really long ranges.  More
likely, you'll look like a big puffer fish to anyone looking (possibly
causing them to think about calling in reinforcements :)

> 2- By spreading the heat signature out, you have the possibilty to =
lower it
> enough to be lost in the background heat.

The heat signature will be reduced in intensity, but not enough to
make it blend in with the background heat.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 02:11:44 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 13:14:51 -0500, you wrote:

> 	Playing a RPG is a form of escapism, just like reading a book is
> escapism, and watching a movie is escapism.  It allows a person to

These are all forms of escapism *if* they deal with things outside of
the events of our daily life.  ID4 is "escapism"... watching the
Discovery Channel isn't.  Perhaps a better definition is simply "fun".

> submerge themselves into another reality for a few hours at a time.=20
> That is the reason that we play RPG's.  The world as we know it SUCKS!=20

^^^^^^
I'm sorry you feel that way, but this is not the opinion of everyone.

> We can't change it, so we leave it for a while.  Anyone who denies that
> this is true, is lying.  So, now you tell me that I have to play

I'm denying it.  I play RPGs to socialize with friends (which are
present in the Real World) and to be entertained.  I don't play RPGs
to escape (read: hide) from reality.  If I did, and I felt that the
world SUCKS, I'd quit my job and roleplay every day.  Instead, I
participate in other forms of "escapism" (as you put it) by cycling,
racing, or going to see a hockey game (all taking place within the
Real World).

> according to what is possible in our real world.  I don't think so. As
> Mr. Adams asked, explain the physics behind the Jump Drive.  I, as soon
> as it is possible, would like the formula's and equasions that prove
> that Jump Space is there, and that the Jump Drive is possible.  Better
> than that, tell me how it is possible to evolve a race of sentient
> humanoids from Terran wolves, cats, cows, and frogs.  Come on everyone,
> get out your slide rules, I'm asking serious Traveller questions, based
> on hard science, and I want answers.  If I can't get them, I guess that
> I'll just have to scrap Traveller altogether.  WRONG!!!  I will use my
> imagination to allow the possibility of such things. =20

This whole post began based on a remark wanting to "minimize" the
amount of pseudo-science in Traveller, not eliminate it.  And it is
getting tiresome.  As you mention later on, everyone will choose where
to place the dividing line between hard science and pseudo-science in
their campaigns-- some will be shifted more in one direction than
others.

> 	Now, that being said, should referee's allow their PC's to run around
> and create anything that they want.  NO.  There must be values and
> limitations placed on any technology.  There must be a plausible
> explanation that allows for technology, even if it is imaginary.  Hard
> Science is a good starting point, and most technology should be rooted
> in HS, but there is room for imagination.  So, a new technology follows
> 2 laws of physics, and breaks 1.  Find an imaginary reason that it can
> break that law, and move on.  Try to be as logical as possible, and
> provide a clear definition, but move on. =20

Exactly.  Just make sure that your newly introduced pseudo-science
doesn't contradict or drastically alter other scientific principles in
your campaign and you're set.  If you leave loopholes, you'll only
have to do more work to patch them later when the question pops up--
"If I can do this... why can't I do *this*?"  :)

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1179
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest      Saturday, April 12 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1180



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Beyond the [solomani] rim...
Re: The Half-Die
Re: CSC Armor?
Re: Task System
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Re: Subject: Fighters revisted
Re: CSC Armor?
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII
Re: Realism vs. Play Value
Conservation (was Re: IR masking)
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII
TL 8 Laser Carbine
Re: IR masking
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 22:23:01 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: Beyond the [solomani] rim...

Solomani writes: 

>Whats the name of the sector "below" (away from core) the Solomani Rim 
>(as looking down on a 2 dimensional map:)

   That would be Aldebaran.  Home, the Solomani Confederation capital
is/was located there.  DGP never got around to producing anything
official for this sector (that I know of) beyond descriptions of some
the member states of the Confederation located there and some
significant worlds and their location.  GDW named the "top" four
subsectors and gave details of the Home system, but that's about as far
as they got in developing the sector.

   If you can wait a couple of weeks or so, I'll post the pre-Collapse
UWPs for the sector as I have generated them for Children of Earth. 
Look for them here or on my Web site.

Regards,

Harold

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 97 17:18:19 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: The Half-Die

On 04/11/97 at 07:09 AM,  jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay) said:

> > > Ever see a d7?  And, no, I'm not talking in Star Trek terminology :)
 
> > Nope, can't say I have.  Are d7's "fair die"?

> "fair die"?  If you mean if they are biased or anything-- probably :)

Yep, that's what I meant.

> Looked kinda goofy.  I guess someone made them just to prove that they
> could :)

Don't tell Joe, or he'll include them in his acursed-task system! <g>

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 97 17:48:30 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: CSC Armor?

On 04/11/97 at 03:39 PM,  anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman) said:

> >> Going from cm to AV you'd do:

> >>     AV : (armor thickness in cm)^(1/3) * (Material Toughness) >
> >> Going from AV to cm you'd rearrange the formula to be:

> >>     (armor in cm) : (AV / (Material Toughness))^3

> >Greg Porter informed me in private email that the formuli above are
> >accurate.  So, now we can build our armor walls. <g>

> I'm curious to why he uses these formulae. 

You'll have to ask Greg were he got the data from which he derived his
formulas.

I'm less concerned with whether the results jive with reality, than that
they produce consistent and easily usable results.  There are some holes
here, as pointed out earlier, and it could be easier to use.

Do you have a better alternative?


Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 19:53:12 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Task System

At 09:22 PM 4/10/97 -0500, you wrote:
>The Lighter Side of the Task System Debate
>==========================================
>
>Everyone else has thrown in their own pet systems for T4's task system, 
>might as well throw mine out there:>

<snip>

>Feeback appreciated!

SNARF!

Well, another can of Coke passed through my sinuses on this one.. I may
print up a copy of this, and leave it where my players will see it...

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   clown outfits.       -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 19:53:09 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

At 09:18 PM 4/10/97 -0600, you wrote:
>At 09:27 am 04/10/97 -0700, you wrote:

>>Well, not exactly. My design for a 20mm single shot sniper rifle does 8D
>>of damage...;-) But you are right, reasonable handheld weapons do 2 or 3D
>>of damage. This is, I think, due far more to the coarseness of the T4
>>damage scale than anything else.
>
>	Yes, exactly. According to the hypertext version, the chart on p107, the
>maximum T4 damage for ANY weapon is 3D. 3g3 DV of 0-4 does 1/2D, 5-12 does
>1D, 13-25 does 2D, and every value of 3g3 DV above 25 lists 3D in the
>Traveller damage column. I couldn't find an equation to calculate Traveller
>Damage based on 3g3 DV. How did you come up with 8D damage?

Read the penetration result as damage.  The formula is DV^.47 -1 for
Traveller Pen/Damage.  

On a related note, I've ruled that the blow-through rules only apply to
small kinetic rounds (bullets), and lasers.  Explosives, plasma weapons, and
other "mega-hurt" weapons should do their full damage.

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   clown outfits.       -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 19:53:19 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: Fighters revisted

At 12:48 PM 4/11/97 +0930, you wrote:

>Okay, then were are you going to eat and sleep if your crew quarters have
>been ripped out to put in missile bays. 
I think the point was that the space required for the fighter's hanger and
launch tube, plus the quarters for the pilot and the maitenence crew, would
be better served by building a missle bay or extending the magazine.  This
would require fewer quarters, giving more effciency in operations.

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   clown outfits.       -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 97 17:38:08 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: CSC Armor?

On 04/11/97 at 09:24 AM,  Per Bernhardsson <bard@ludd.luth.se> said:

> > > Going from cm to AV you'd do:
> > 
> > >     AV = (armor thickness in cm)^(1/3) * (Material Toughness)
> > 
> > > Going from AV to cm you'd rearrange the formula to be:
> > 
> > >     (armor in cm) = (AV / (Material Toughness))^3
> > 
> > Greg Porter informed me in private email that the formuli above are
> > accurate.  So, now we can build our armor walls. <g>

> Hmm, think about this. Let's say I want to build a wall with AV 40. I
> have a material with touchness 5. Then we get the following formula:

> thickness = (40/5)^/3 = 216 cm

> That's quite a lot of armor! 

Yes, it is.  But that's correct.

> If I then instead use 4 separate walls of armor each with AV 10 using the
> same material I get:

> For one of the base walls

> thickness = (10/5)^3 = 8 cm

> for all 4 walls counted together that equals 32 cm, which is well... a
> BIG difference.

Yes, it *certainly* is! ;->  It's also something that isn't allowed with
the VDS...should be, but isn't.

You might run into a *need* to stack or layer armor especially with
something like..."The blast from the attacker's laser punches right through
your outer hull and 2 inner bulkheads splashing against the hull on the
other side."

> Somehow I think those formulas are a bit strange.

The formuli aren't strange, they *are* correct for VDS.

It's just that you can't stack armor in this system. This is stated in CSC
on page 57 in the Note, "There is no easy way to 'layer' armor in
Traveller. The only way to get an accurate value is to figure the total
thickness of all armor, and generate an armor rating from that."  So, you
have to add your 4 walls together and come up with a unified armor..sigh..

I'd like a different system that allows for armor layering or stacking, but
I also understand Greg's reasoning for requiring that the thickness be be
raised to the 3rd power.


Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 19:53:16 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

At 02:14 PM 4/11/97, you wrote:
>** Reply to note from Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net> Thu, 10 Apr 1997
15:14:34 -0700 (PDT) 

>> It's in *everyone*'s best interests to make Trav reality match the 
>> physical universe as closely as possible, minimizing hand-waved 
>> exceptions.  The reason can be expressed as the Law of Unintended 
>> Consequences:  "Every action taken to achieve a goal will also achieve 
>> one or more unintended consequences, which may directly or indirectly 
>> interfere with that goal, or cause greater harm elsewhere." 
> 
> 
>No No No No No. I repeat NO. 
 
>Take Babylon 5. While it is the most realistic show on tv, it has things
which are impossable. 
>Like instant full duplex interstellar communications, batteries that fit in
the hand that 
>can heat materials to plasma. Not to mention jump drives. 

B5 is internally consistent.  They have never broken their canon for the
sake of a story.  For example, it is established that most ships need
jumpgates for interstellar travel, so only military and Minbari ships will
regularly roam free.  This keeps them from just invading Zha'ha'dum with the
entire fleet.  I have no trouble with hyper-effcient batteries.. we may be
far from developing them, but the technology is sound.

>The reason for this is for the telling of the story. The story is king in
RPG, the science is 
>a handle, a plot device that allows the story to flow. 

You haven't met my players.  you need to be consitent in your game, or you
lose everything.  If one week the players can't jump directly out of the
spacedock for plot reasons, and the next week the villian does exactly that,
the players are going to lose faith in their ability to acomplish anything
without the Referee's prior approval.
 
>Why cant I have a wooden ship? Howard Chaykin did in "Ironwolf", and Tenchi
Muyo has them as 
>well. Why cant I have a fighter that takes out a capital ship? Babylon 5
and Star Wars does. 
>Why cant I have artificial uturine replicators and bringing people back
from the dead like 
>Lous McMasters Bujold does? 

Space:1889, The Babylon Project, and the Star Wars RPG are all avalible at
your local game store.  For raising the dead, I suggest GURPS Ultra-Tech,
which has several technologies along that line.

The point is that Traveller has always had a hard-science edge to it.  It's
why I play it.  I know that jump is going to take 168 hours, +/- 10%.  I
know that Capitol is 3 or 4 years from the Spinward Marches.  Change these,
and your messing with the basic assumptions behind Traveller and its setting.
 
>I want to tell a story, and the strong thing about traveller is not the
technolagy (which 
>always sucked, but is changing with Gods own Games Designer Greg Porter),
not the science 
>(which has not always been great but it was workable), but the rich and
detailed background.  

Which is tied in with the technology.
 
>If realism disallows something that I want in my story, F**K realism!
Science Fiction has two 
>parts ... the science AND fiction. If someone says that it cant work ,
invent some bullsh*tium 
>to justify it, like jump drives! (Jump drives are a plot device , and
should be treated as 
>such!!!!) 

In a tecno-thriller, an assult rifle is a plot device, but if it isn't done
correctly, it will destroy the entertainment value.  When I start my van at
work, I have an expectation of what will happen with the engine.. If
suddenly I find myself able to drive at 250mph through the streets of San
Francisco, something is wrong.  It's not consistent with what I know to be
normal.

In a similar vein, if you suddenly change the way that Jump, or any other
basic piece of the Traveller universe, works; you'll leave the players with
no base.  Change the laws of physics, and somebody will notice.
 
>Rember the first law of gaming : keep the punters enertained. 

Mine are entertained by the realistic universe that they "commute" to every
other Tuesday.  They aren't rocket scientists (my wife, two security
guard/philosophers, and two unemployed), but they know enough to realize
that this universe is similar to the they live in.

If we wished to go wild, as it were, we'd be playing Space Opera or AD&D.

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   clown outfits.       -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 19:53:55 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value

At 01:14 PM 4/11/97 -0500, Jeff Harvey wrote:

>	I have to say that I agree, to a certain extent, with Darryl Adams. 
>However, the story is NOT king.  The IMAGINATION is.  We are attempting
>to look into the future, and determine what those people/civilizations
>will be capable of.  How can we know?  Is there any way that we can
>actually know what they will have 2000 years from now??? NO, THERE IS
>NOT!  

So you are saying that the basic laws of the universe will change?

>	The gearheads, such as Anders Backman, are so deeply rooted in their
>belief in Physics, and science in general, that they have allowed them
>to pull the plug on their imaginations.  How one can play a RPG without
>imagination is beyond me.  By the way, Mr. Backman, we are all very
>impressed with the list of "scientists" that you have as players. 
>Ooooo......Ahhhhhhh.  

I am a gearhead, and my imagination works just fine, thank you.  IMNSHO, it
takes more imagination to try to define a realistic future that holds true
to the laws of nature than to simply declare that "Hesienbeg compensators"
allow you to ignore the laws of thermodynamics.

>	Playing a RPG is a form of escapism, just like reading a book is
>escapism, and watching a movie is escapism.  It allows a person to
>submerge themselves into another reality for a few hours at a time. 
>That is the reason that we play RPG's.  The world as we know it SUCKS! 

Your telling me?  Mail me privately for a detailed description of just how
bad one life can get.  That, however isn't why I run Traveller, I run games
because I enjoy entertaining my friends for an evening.  When I play in a
RPG (rare these days) I do it for both the escapism, and to challenge myself.

>We can't change it, so we leave it for a while.  Anyone who denies that
>this is true, is lying. 

Are you calling me a liar?

 So, now you tell me that I have to play
>according to what is possible in our real world.  I don't think so.

OK, so if I'm in your game, I can just state that the plasma burst didn't
hurt me.  Hey, it's only a game?  So I can do whatever I want, otherwise
you're interfering with my escape from the horrible world.

 As
>Mr. Adams asked, explain the physics behind the Jump Drive.  I, as soon
>as it is possible, would like the formula's and equasions that prove
>that Jump Space is there, and that the Jump Drive is possible. 

I suggest you read "A Brief History of Time" by Dr. Stephan Hawking.. he
descibes somethings that sound like they could be jumpspace.  As for the
plans for an operational J-1, well, we haven't built one yet, but that
doesn't mean that at some point in the future we will find the key to FTL
travel.

 Better
>than that, tell me how it is possible to evolve a race of sentient
>humanoids from Terran wolves, cats, cows, and frogs.

Funny you should mention that.. I visited my oncologist today, and he
mentioned that within 20 years, he expected that genetic cancers like
Hodgkin's Disease, would be eliminated through genetic engineering.  We're
at TL8 (roughly), and we are getting to the point where we can create
artificial life (oil eating bacteria), clone large mammals (Dolly the
Sheep), and eliminate genetic flaws.  The Ancients were at TL25 when the
created the Vargr.  Clarke's Law applies in this situation, I beleive.
Still, the creation of the Vargr violates *no* biological or physical law
that I'm aware of.

>	Now, that being said, should referee's allow their PC's to run around
>and create anything that they want.  NO.  There must be values and
>limitations placed on any technology.  There must be a plausible
>explanation that allows for technology, even if it is imaginary.  Hard
>Science is a good starting point, and most technology should be rooted
>in HS, but there is room for imagination.  So, a new technology follows
>2 laws of physics, and breaks 1.  Find an imaginary reason that it can
>break that law, and move on.  Try to be as logical as possible, and
>provide a clear definition, but move on.  

And when somebody exploits you breaking of that one law in a perfectly
logical and consistent way?  Take the suggestion that ships could dump
excess heat into jump space.  Craig immediately pointed out the vast changes
this "simple" bit of handwaving would cause.  Hell, *I* picked up on that
problem, and I learned all my physics through self-teaching.  (I didn't know
the exact effect, but I knew it sounded wrong.)

>	I personally imagine tech level advancement of a planet/culture to take
>lifetimes.  Many scientists spend their lives looking for new improved
>ways to do things, or to find things that couldn't be done previously.

My wife's Great-grandmother was born in 1906.  When she died last week, she
finished a journey from late TL4 to TL8.

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   clown outfits.       -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 22:19:59 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com>
Subject: Conservation (was Re: IR masking)

Quoth Rupert Boleyn:
> If the law of Conservation of Momentum isn't broken in T4 then how do
> thrusters work? I thought that FF&S did away with them for this very reason.

Momentum is conserved, the two components just aren't connected.  That is
to say, your typical starship might mass some 1E9 grams, but the star (and
attendant gravity well) against which its thruster plates push masses on
the order of 1E33 grams, so it's kinda hard to notice its recoil....  :-)

- ----------------------------*------------------------*------------------------
 Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett  |"Nullum magnum ingenium | GURPS fan, Amiga user,
http://www.io.com/~jlockett | sine mixtura dementiae | Shakespearean scholar,
  Email: jlockett@io.com    | fuit." -- Seneca       | actor and director.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 22:13:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

Quoth Erwin Fritz:
> Paul D. Owensby wrote:
> > Re: > TL12-15 computers definitely won't have any keyboards
> > Oh? and what do you suggest using for imput in crowded starport lounges
> > or in lecture halls where you don't want to disturb/be overheard by others?
> 
> Picture a phone-booth structure. You use your voice! Bet you can
> talk faster than you can type.

But in a lecture hall or other conversational area, where I'm trying to
listen and record the heard information, I don't want to have to use my
own vocal apparatus to do it.  Too much opportunity for confusion, loss
of information, etc.  Keyboarding or handwriting has got to be available.

- ----------------------------*------------------------*------------------------
 Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett  |"Nullum magnum ingenium | GURPS fan, Amiga user,
http://www.io.com/~jlockett | sine mixtura dementiae | Shakespearean scholar,
  Email: jlockett@io.com    | fuit." -- Seneca       | actor and director.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 22:36:49 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com>
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

Quoth Darryl Adams, dadams@tig.com.au (Why do so many Australians spell badly?):
> Im sory, but this does not wash. I have Star Wars, and while is is a more
> simplistic system than Traveller, It is still internally consistant, as it
> is a reproductions of one man's vision (George Lucus).  

Artistically or logically self-consistent?  I'll grant you the former, but
the latter is a damn sight harder to come by.  And the two are very
different!

> Lets face it, if you want to play hard science fiction, play soemthing
> based on Allen Steele's near earth stories or 2300Ad (a better hard sci
> fi game than traveller, as the only thing that breaks the reality test
> is shuttlewarp).  

Untrue.  It's closer than Traveller and with better handwaving,
admittedly, but 2300 AD had its own share of egregious scientific
bloopers.  (Off the top of my head, try Station Arcture, which can't
keep aimed straight at Arcturus due to simple rotational inertia:
which wouldn't be a problem if they'd just added a second but
counter-rotating spin ring!)  What's the harm in making your tools
and universe scientifically consistent when possible?  Who knows,
you and your players might learn something, which isn't going to
happen with Star Wars in a million years.
  
> I point to Issac Asimov, A C CLarke, Niven and Pournelle, James Hogan and
> other writers of hard science fiction. Sometimes these people pick up a
> scientific princible and fly with it as the focus (The Gods Themselves,
> The Genisis machine et al), they mainly tell the story. 

Asimov is anything but "hard" (though the psychohistory explanation is a
good one, it's one of his few).  What was the purple-beam weapon from one
of his early novels that some White Dwarf presented in Traveller terms?
Clarke, Pournelle, and Niven, though, I'll grant you.  Niven was told
"The Ringworld is unstable!" by picketing CalTech students, accepted it,
and then based another novel off of it!  So much for scientific (_not_
"artistic") self-consistency squelching all hope of exciting plots....
  
Heinlein was pretty "hard" for the '40's and '50's.  Alas, though, now we
know more about spaceflight (we've actually done it, see).  For that matter,
a lot of Heinlein would have been fairly obvious pulp even when he wrote
it: see Niven's (or was it Pournelle's?) "Those Pesky Belters and Their
Torch Ships" for a nice analysis.

Darryl, I agree that we need to have excitement and variety in our games. 
But I think the place to look for that is in the _inhabitants_ of the
universe, in their cultures, beliefs, quests and plots, and not in the
ongoing quest for yet more gee-whiz McGuffin tech, anime-style robots, and
other technological impracticalities, all the while frantically trying to
preserve the freedom of the referee to make stupid mistakes about the way
the universe works. 

- ----------------------------*------------------------*------------------------
 Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett  |"Nullum magnum ingenium | GURPS fan, Amiga user,
http://www.io.com/~jlockett | sine mixtura dementiae | Shakespearean scholar,
  Email: jlockett@io.com    | fuit." -- Seneca       | actor and director.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 23:29:25 -0500
From: "K.C. Komosky" <umkomosk@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Subject: TL 8 Laser Carbine

	Now I hesitate to bring this up with the never-ending science realism 
debate taking place, but here goes...

	Well, I just purchased Emperor's Arsenal today. I am quite impressed with 
this supplement, even though I'm not much of a gearhead and don't usually 
care for just long lists of equipment.

	I do have one question though. I remember that one of CTs charming 
anachronisms was the TL 8 Laser Carbine, and the TL 9 Laser Rifle. Well 
sure, as we near the year 2000 we still don't have any effective laser 
weapons, so I can understand pushing them back in Traveller, but why is the 
first real laser weapon I can find at TL 12???? I WANT LASERS IN MY SCI-FI, 
GAWD-DAMMIT!

K.C. Komosky
umkomosk@cc.umanitoba.ca

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 03:42:38 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: IR masking

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 20:22:42 -0400, you wrote:

> >A lot of the analysis here depends on the one presumption which
> >I find questionable.  That excess energy must be lost of passive
> >black body emission.  The fact is that one can certainly see
> >a ship masking itself by either using a force emission at
> >a wavelength that is better masked by the background (like
> >the interstellar microwave background) and by emitting the
> >energy on a tight beam away from the enemy.
> >
> >The only requirement that thermodynamics imposes is that
> >you spend energy to do this.
> >
> Just because you spend energy to mask energy doesn't mean that you are
> defeating your purpose. The energy that you spend to mask the infrared =
is an
> infrared signal that it emitted in a way that, when the two interacts =
with
> each other, their properties cancel each other out.

Yes, but you still have to *produce* the counteracting signal, and it
will require a great deal of energy to produce a signal to cancel out
the heat signature radiating from a starship.

Assuming 100% efficiency (not very likely), you would need to generate
an amount of energy for your counter-wave equal to the *total*
radiated energy making up the IR signature of the vessel.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 01:02:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com>
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

Quoth dadams@tig.com.au:
> > It's in *everyone*'s best interests to make Trav reality match the 
> > physical universe as closely as possible, minimizing hand-waved 
> > exceptions.
>  
> No No No No No. I repeat NO. 

This is an argument?  He exhibits reason and discretion (note "minimizing,"
_not_ "eliminating" or "forbidding" in the quote above), and your rejoinder
leads off with that scintillating bit of analysis?  Enough.  Let's get to
the better-argued stuff.

> Take Babylon 5. While it is the most realistic show on tv, it has things
> which are impossable.

Keep in mind that television shows and movies, under complete artistic
control by the writers, directors, producers, etc., can and do get away
with more loopholes and mistakes than an RPG can or should.  Or are you
advocating dictatory plot control by the GM to keep the characters from
wandering into embarassing areas of the universe?

> Like instant full duplex interstellar communications,
> Not to mention jump drives. 

Granted.  It violates our current understanding of physics, but doesn't
pose any really nasty problems -- unless you start messing with ships
capable of speeds near c (rare in B5, a couple of possibly throw-away
screen displays aside), in which case you get time travel.  (And, heck,
JMS has already played with that one.... :-)

> batteries that fit in the hand that can heat materials to plasma.

Big whoop.  The "material" you use makes a lot of difference.  If they
were using lead as ammunition, yes, it'd be stupid.  As it is, it's
helium, which is relatively trivial to ionize to plasma.  And JMS has made
fairly good handwaving arguments for the use of PPG's as opposed to
slug-throwers (low kinetic but high thermal damage to maximize personnel
but minimize structural damage, supply and cost of ammunition, etc.).  So
he's scientifically justified it, and people don't mind.  What many here
on the TML are objecting to, it looks like, is your cavalier insistence
that none of it matters, and we should all be toting Phased Blue Tetryon
Disrupters that will scramble our enemies' neurons, disintegrate shackles
but not the wrists enclosed in them, or cook up a mean breakfast enchilada
all with the twist of a single control knob.

> The reason for this is for the telling of the story. The story is king in
> RPG, the science is a handle, a plot device that allows the story to flow.  

The story is king in RPG's, I'll accept.  But there's a reason this is
_science_ fiction that we play, and not Dark Dragonlance Sun in the
Demonweb Pits.  Fantasy is fine and has its place... but many are
disagreeing (vehemently, like me!) that that place is in Traveller.

> Why cant I have a wooden ship?

You can.  But please explain why it's economical with all the attention
you'd need to sealant, connectors, armoring, and so on;  and why, if you
don't need to worry about that stuff, why everyone doesn't drive dugout
ships around the starlanes.  Or play Space:1889, which takes it all in
stride....  :-)

> Why cant I have a fighter that takes out a capital ship? Babylon 5 and
> Star Wars does.

[Agreement in number between subject and verb... down, English major, down!]

Babylon-5 _doesn't_, which is one reason I like it.  I defy you to point out
a single case of a fighter "taking out" a capital ship on the show.  JMS has
specifically staged on multiple occasions that the fighters are there for
purposes of harassment and to tie up incidental weaponry so that the big
stuff can be brought to bear by the larger vessels.  Fighters help, but
they don't win the day.

As for Star Wars... it's science fantasy.  Play it if you like, enjoy it
even: who are we to stop you?  But that's why Star Wars and Traveller tend
to cater to different markets.  Science fantasy vs. science fiction.
 
> If realism disallows something that I want in my story, F**K realism!
> If someone says that it cant work , invent some bullsh*tium to justify it,
> like jump drives!

You can have as much rope as you want to hang yourself with.  Just don't
scream bloody murder (as you're doing), when more sensible souls point out
how your ill-thought-out cow-pucky could easily spoil the very structure
of the universe which you claim to love.
  
> Rember the first law of gaming : keep the punters enertained. 

In your opinion.  My first law would be "Maintain atmosphere and
suspension of disbelief."  Too much handwaving, or a dictatorial
referee who forbids creative extensions to it, hurts both.

- ----------------------------*------------------------*------------------------
 Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett  |"Nullum magnum ingenium | GURPS fan, Amiga user,
http://www.io.com/~jlockett | sine mixtura dementiae | Shakespearean scholar,
  Email: jlockett@io.com    | fuit." -- Seneca       | actor and director.

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1180
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest      Saturday, April 12 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1181



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: TL 8 Laser Carbine
Re: [TML] Backmans partial space combat system
Are CG lifters in CSC broken?
Re: Realism and gearheading
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII
Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)
Re: CSC Armor?
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII
Re: Task System
Storing H2
Re: Are CG lifters in CSC broken?
TAS Form 2 (character sheet)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 01:16:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com>
Subject: Re: TL 8 Laser Carbine

Quoth K.C. Komosky:
> sure, as we near the year 2000 we still don't have any effective laser 
> weapons, so I can understand pushing them back in Traveller, but why is the 
> first real laser weapon I can find at TL 12???? I WANT LASERS IN MY SCI-FI!

Greg Porter would probably note that, if you get super-effective anti-
personnel lasers too early, they eliminate the window for practical and
economic gauss weapons.  TNE began to push laser tech levels back for
just this reason, and Greg's probably just continuing the trend.

Consider this: I like to have a good mix of weapons available in my game.
If we go straight from gunpowder-based weapons to lasers, the variety
suffers.  If lasers, for perfectly good physical reasons, take longer to
become practical handheld weapons in a general rather than specialized
role, we have the "room" to play with gyroc weapons, caseless rounds,
binary propellant, gauss weapons, the BLAMs (Barrel-Launched ?Automatic?
Munitions?) that BBC World Service talked about just the other day, etc.

- ----------------------------*------------------------*------------------------
 Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett  |"Nullum magnum ingenium | GURPS fan, Amiga user,
http://www.io.com/~jlockett | sine mixtura dementiae | Shakespearean scholar,
  Email: jlockett@io.com    | fuit." -- Seneca       | actor and director.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 02:20:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: mfulghum@awod.com (Michael Fulghum)
Subject: Re: [TML] Backmans partial space combat system

>Anybody interested in looking at it mail me for a copy (it's about 15K
>straight ascii) as I thought it was too big for mailing on the list
>directly.
>
I would like a copy of this.  I am currently working on my own personal
campaign that is using Traveller (CT, MT, FF&S, T$), 2300AD, and Space
Opera.  Any new ideas would be most apprecated, as well as equipment, both
personal and starship related.

Thank you,

Mike Fulghum
Mfulghum@awod.com

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 23:47:25 -0400
From: Commander X <cmdrx@magicnet.net>
Subject: Are CG lifters in CSC broken?

Ok I was trying to develop something using a small CG lifter unit, in
CSC I get a min volume of 0.01m^3(1 cubic centemeter) but a mass of
.00650T!(6.5kg)  doing a little math, this gives TL-12 CG lifter
material a desity of 6,500g/cm^3!  what the heck is this stuff, dwarf
star metal?  Surely this must be kg and not tonnes.

- -- 
Commander X
(cmdrx@magicnet.net <or> bprankard@theiia.org)
Creator, Maintainor, and Webmeister of "Planet X"
(www.magicnet.net/~cmdrx)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 01:17:03 -0500
From: Jeff Harvey <jharvey@nlci.com>
Subject: Re: Realism and gearheading

Scott Ellsworth wrote:
> 
> 
> Originally, I was going to let this pass, but then I decided this was a
> personal attack on the gearheads, and I am in a bad mood.  Psych up.

Exactly the mood I was in, when I wrote my previous post!
> 
> 
> You were insulting enough in response to deserve a reply.

You are correct.  That was directed at ONE individual, who said, and I
quote:
"We live in an undereducated world where most people equate science
with magic."
> 
> 
> 
>That element is - suspension of disbelief.

I heartily agree!!!
> 
>
> Here is a list of things that blow suspension of disbelief:
> 
> Outrunning an explosion
> Seeing and ducking from an explosion closer than several hundred feet
> Recovering from a knockout blow instantly
> Falling from a great height on a regular basis, and not being even slowed down
> Taking a bullet and continuing to operate.  Allowed in special cases, but
> not for an average person.
> Having something that leads to ultimate weapons, or perpetual motion, or
> free energy, or whatever, and having nobody try to make use of it.

You are totally correct.  I personally, HATE action movies for this very
reason.  SPEED, for example, was a very good action movie, but when they
threw in the bus jumping a gap in the freeway, I was insulted!  
> 
> >  We are attempting
> >to look into the future, and determine what those people/civilizations
> >will be capable of.  How can we know?  Is there any way that we can
> >actually know what they will have 2000 years from now??? NO, THERE IS
> >NOT!
> 
> No, but when we are presented with a bit of fake tech, any idiot can at
> least guess what the ramifications of it are.  The more training you have,
> the better your guesses are going to be.  Your guesses have to be good
> enough to preserve SoD.
> 
> >       The gearheads, such as Anders Backman, are so deeply rooted in their
> >belief in Physics, and science in general, that they have allowed them
> >to pull the plug on their imaginations.
> 
> Go learn more science, you might find that it does not really harm your
> imagination.  Most of Ander's complaints of late have been about things
> that are just not arguable.  You can make some hand wave magic to change
> the way it works, but then you get to live with the consequences.

Fine.  I have no problem with that.  I don't believe in hand-wave
magic.  I never explicitly said that I did.  The base meaning of my
message was based in the following paragraph.

Now, that being said, should referee's allow their PC's to run around
and create anything that they want.  NO.  There must be values and
limitations placed on any technology.  There must be a plausible
explanation that allows for technology, even if it is imaginary.  Hard
Science is a good starting point, and most technology should be rooted
in HS, but there is room for imagination.  So, a new technology follows
2 laws of physics, and breaks 1.  Find an imaginary reason that it can
break that law, and move on.  Try to be as logical as possible, and
provide a clear definition, but move on.


> 
  They
> are not malicious, but they think that I, like them, have tried to make the
> world consistent, with a reasonable number of changes needed to make it
> work with the assumed tech.  From there, the principle of "People are not
> STUPID" rules.

Once again, you are correct.  People are not stupid.  The people that I
play with, are some of the most intelligent people that I know.  My
group includes a HS math teacher, a college TA in Biology, a bank
manager, one of his employees, and a person with a Psychology degree,
who is currently working as a welder.  We do NOT play Space Opera. 
However, we do allow for certain advancements in Tech, that are as yet
unheard of.  They are HIGHLY restricted, and certainly limited.  There
is never a rule that is simply laid down because "I say so".  My players
want reasons, and I give them to the best of my ability.  If I don't
have all the information, I ask them their opinions, and they generally
give me good advice.  I am intelligent enough to know when they seeking
benefits for their PC's, and can generally come up with solutions that
provide a limited, restricted basis.
> 

> 
> >That is the reason that we play RPG's.  The world as we know it SUCKS!
> 
> Get a different world.  I am pretty annoyed with mine right now, but I am
> sending out resumes.  In the mean time, relax.

Please don't patronize me.  I am relatively impressed with you
arguments.  You actually believe most of what I think.  But this comment
was unnecessary.  
> 

> 
> No.  But if you want a Traveller player to care about what you are talking
> about, you have to stick close enough to canon that what you are saying is
> interesting.  

Again, correct.  However, there is nothing in the Traveller rules that
is written in stone.  Canon can always be changed.  Interest is a
personal opinion.  What I find interesting, does not always include the
whole group.  There are people, in the TML, that applaud what I had to
say earlier.  There are people, in the TML that will applaud what you
have to say.  We are all a group, and there should be no "us against
them".  Otherwise, we have to have two TML's.  However, don't exclude
someone because they choose to believe in the story, and their
imagination, as opposed to hard science.   
> 
> > As
> >Mr. Adams asked, explain the physics behind the Jump Drive.  I, as soon
> >as it is possible, would like the formula's and equasions that prove
> >that Jump Space is there, and that the Jump Drive is possible.
> 
> Don't be disingenuous.  They give enough operational parameters in the
> books to know how it can be used.  You have some idea of what it means, and
> if they physics is a bit funky, fine.  You accept it as part of the game,
> and everything it implies.  Players are right to ask whether a jump drive
> needs the mass, needs the volume, or needs to H2 in their fuel, because it
> makes a big difference when they are trying to wilderness refuel a jump drive.
 
> Every game has to be clear about what works and what doesn't, or the
> players are just along for the ride.

Once again, you are correct.  As I said earlier, new Tech has to be
highly restricted, and certainly limited.  There must be reasons for the
restrictions and limitations, but I have to allow for a certain amount
of creativity.


	Personally, I believe that you and I think along the same lines.  I
enjoy physics to the degree that I can easily involve myself in a
discussion, and I perfer discussions that allow me to learn something
new.  But I will not research physics for entertainment.  I think that
we clashed in areas that were, if not unintentional, certainly
unintended.  Thanks for the response.

						Jeff Harvey

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 08:55:35 +0200
From: Per Bernhardsson <bard@ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

Paul D. Owensby wrote:

[BIG SNIP]

> that Empress Wave
> thingy had to come from somewhere.... <g>

Um... What's the Empress Wave?

 / Per

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 09:15:18 +0200
From: Per Bernhardsson <bard@ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)

Bruce Johnson wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Christopher M. Russell wrote:
> 
> > >And supposedly, the computers on the Shuttle are still using ferrite core
> > >memory.  Supposedly each of the computers is less powerful than a 386.
> > >Anyone know for certain?
> >
> > Even scarier, they were made by Apple!
> 
> Oh, so THAT'S why they're still working! ;-)

They must, otherwise the processes started back in the 60's don't have
enough time to finish. :)

 / Per

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 09:13:20 +0200
From: Per Bernhardsson <bard@ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: CSC Armor?

Eris Reddoch wrote:
> 
> You'll have to ask Greg were he got the data from which he derived his
> formulas.

That might be an idea. Anyone know his email, or is he reading the list?

> I'm less concerned with whether the results jive with reality, than that
> they produce consistent and easily usable results.  There are some holes
> here, as pointed out earlier, and it could be easier to use.
> 
> Do you have a better alternative?

Nope, and I will probably use these formulas until I can find something
better, or rather I will when I can get my hands on CSC and EA... :)

 / Per

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 07:17:24 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 19:53:09 -0700, you wrote:

> On a related note, I've ruled that the blow-through rules only apply to
> small kinetic rounds (bullets), and lasers.  Explosives, plasma =
weapons, and
> other "mega-hurt" weapons should do their full damage.

"Mega-hurt"... I like that :)

I assume that the 3d maximum damage applies to "humanoids", since they
are the main target of most PCs (and NPCs).  If the 3d limit is based
on how much damage a human(oid) body can take before the attack "blows
through", a larger target such as a bull elephant would logically have
a higher limitation.  Conversely, field mice probably max out at less
than 1D.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 07:17:25 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 19:53:16 -0700, you wrote:

> B5 is internally consistent.  They have never broken their canon for =
the
> sake of a story.  For example, it is established that most ships need
> jumpgates for interstellar travel, so only military and Minbari ships =
will
> regularly roam free.  This keeps them from just invading Zha'ha'dum =
with the
> entire fleet.  I have no trouble with hyper-effcient batteries.. we may=
 be
> far from developing them, but the technology is sound.

Actually, larger ships that possess jump engines of their own can
actually open up an entry into hyperspace and keep it open.  This
allows the smaller ships to enter hyperspace in the B5 universe
without a jump gate.

> In a tecno-thriller, an assult rifle is a plot device, but if it isn't =
done
> correctly, it will destroy the entertainment value.  When I start my =
van at
> work, I have an expectation of what will happen with the engine.. If
> suddenly I find myself able to drive at 250mph through the streets of =
San
> Francisco, something is wrong.  It's not consistent with what I know to=
 be
> normal.

Regarding your van: I got two words for ya... "Yeeeeee-Haaw!!!"

> |*************************************************|
> |   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
> |   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
> |   clown outfits.       -News of the Weird       |
> +-------------------------------------------------+

They find this Ugandan criminal yet?  Has INTERPOL been alerted?  It's
been in your .sig for quite a while now :)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 09:22:18 +0200
From: Per Bernhardsson <bard@ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: Task System

Neveron@aol.com wrote:
> 
> You forgot:
> Get Real- 2D1000
> and
> Mcgyver Doesn't Dare-Slap the player upside the head with "starships"
> dsf

I seem to have deleted the rest of this tasksystem. Could anyone put
everything together and send it to me? I would like to have something to
scare my players with. :)

 / Per

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 09:48:19 +0200
From: Per Bernhardsson <bard@ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Storing H2

I just read something interesting. (Anders Backman and any other Swedes
can look it up, Ny Teknik, Issue 14, April 4th pg 28-29). Currently it's
possible to store 1716 kg H2 per m^3, what does the Traveller rules say
about packing H2? How much space is required?

Ok, a quick description of the technique to store the H2. The tank is
filled with grafite nanofibres, which (they think) slows down the
molecules so that 5 layers of molecules can be stored where there really
should only be room for 1 layer. For you who want numbers. Each layer is
0.34 nm thick. One problem with this way of containing H2 is that the
nanfibres stop working correctly after a few uses, but that might be
fixed... At least in a few TLs... Don't you think? :)

 / Per

PS. Anders, if you think this is the traditional april fools joke, it
isn't, that one is on page 16, it's about a speech controlled carphone.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 09:56:41 +0200
From: Per Bernhardsson <bard@ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: Are CG lifters in CSC broken?

Commander X wrote:
> 
> Ok I was trying to develop something using a small CG lifter unit, in
> CSC I get a min volume of 0.01m^3(1 cubic centemeter) but a mass of
> .00650T!(6.5kg)  doing a little math, this gives TL-12 CG lifter
> material a desity of 6,500g/cm^3!  what the heck is this stuff, dwarf
> star metal?  Surely this must be kg and not tonnes.

Actually 0.01 m^3 is 10000 cm^3. (There's a factor of 1000000 between
m^3 and cm^3)

So I doubt that it really THAT broken. :)

 / Per

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 01:43:49 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: TAS Form 2 (character sheet)

- --Message-Boundary-28490
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-description: Mail message body

TAS Form 2   (A T4 Character Sheet)


This is a character sheet that I put together for my game.  I 
designed it in the vein of the old little black book character 
sheets--I always liked how functional they looked.

The sheet is and attachment to this post in Word v2.0.

There's two files--one for the front and one for the back.  I've 
adjusted the spacing so that you can punch holes in it and keep it in 
a notebook.

On the front, I've included personal data and history and history 
about the character.  On the back, you'll see spaces for psionics, 
UPP, and skill information.

Many players like to keep the skills a character has secret, and 
that's why all the skills are listed on the back of the sheet.

Everything on the sheet is in standard traveller-ese, but three 
things may need some explanation.

In the skills section, you'll find both an "Exp." and an "XP" column. 
 The "Exp." stands for experience score.  You'll know what this is if 
you use the KBv2.0 task system.  

If you don't use my task system, there's still no reason for a good 
character sheet to go to waste.  You've got the word file--just 
change the "Exp." column heading to "Level".  I purposefully placed 
this column right after the skill name column for people who don't 
use KBv2.0.

The "XP" column is a place to record experience points for each 
skill--no matter what experience system you use.

And on the bottom of the page, in box 38, you'll see "Level Limit."  
In my game, I referr to the level limit as the old (edu + int) score 
from CT.  I'm going to use a limit like this when I re-work the T4 
experience system.

If you don't want to use level limits in your game, then just delete 
this box.  I purposefully put it as the last box for people who wish 
to delete the box--so there won't be a whole in the middle of your 
character sheet.

As I said, the sheet's in Word v2.0.  If you have any problems 
obtaining the sheet from this attachment on the list, then e-mail me 
in private.  I'll send it to you directly in response.

That's it for now,

Kenneth.
- --Message-Boundary-28490
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-disposition: inline
Content-description: Attachment information.

The following section of this message contains a file attachment
prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any another MIME-compliant system,
you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.
If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.

   ---- File information -----------
     File:  t4charft.doc
     Date:  12 Apr 1997, 1:18
     Size:  6454 bytes.
     Type:  MS-Word

- --Message-Boundary-28490
Content-type: Application/MSWord; name=t4charft.doc
Content-disposition: attachment; filename="t4charft.doc"
Content-transfer-encoding: BASE64
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- --Message-Boundary-28490
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-disposition: inline
Content-description: Attachment information.

The following section of this message contains a file attachment
prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any another MIME-compliant system,
you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.
If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.

   ---- File information -----------
     File:  t4charbk.doc
     Date:  12 Apr 1997, 1:14
     Size:  5942 bytes.
     Type:  MS-Word

- --Message-Boundary-28490
Content-type: Application/MSWord; name=t4charbk.doc
Content-disposition: attachment; filename="t4charbk.doc"
Content-transfer-encoding: BASE64
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- --Message-Boundary-28490--

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1181
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest      Saturday, April 12 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1182



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Martial arts
Re: Realism vs. Play Value
Re: Fighters revisted
Re: Beyond the [solomani] rim...
Re: Sylea --> Capitol
Re: CSC Armor?
Core Sector Subsector Names?
Re: Subject: Fighters revisted
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Jumpdrive
Re: Question- IR sigs for small craft.
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII
Re: IR masking.
Re: IR masking
Re: IR Sensors in Space
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Re: Low-tech space fighters
Re: Sensor strength analysis

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 09:48:59 +0200
From: Paolo Bertiglia <pbertigl@io.com>
Subject: Re: Martial arts

At 04:55 PM 3/18/97 -0500, you wrote:

>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 97 18:40:31 +0100
>From: marino@inrete.it (Paolo Marino)
>Subject: Martial Arts
>
>Here is my ideas for Martial Arts in T4. This has been taken from my
>(forthcoming) Traveller page. Any Comments?
>

Check the book in the Dorsai series: it has a well done (if scketchy)
treatment of non oriental martial arts in a science fiction setting.

The scene in which Graeme enter nacked in the room where his brother
killers are waiting telling "I'm not a soldier, I'm a warrior" give the
idea I have of a very proficent future martial art praticionier.

Implementing real world system to a SFRPG should be enriched by some
speculation about possible development and martial arts will develope as
well as other aspect of human life and technology.

Paolo.

[]----------------------------------------[]-----------------[]-------------[]
| Paolo Bertiglia: Scout, Oracle DBA, Mac  | Communism and    |   Official   |
| owner, Eudora fan, rpg and independent   | capitalism are   |   Kibitzer   |
| comics and SF collector, wannabe writer, | two faces of the |     for      |
| designer, more hairy, father, smarter,   | same coin in     | DIGEST GROUP |
| Tremere, ecc. ;).                        | someone else     | PUBLICATIONS |
| From Italy of course.                    | wallet.          |      ;)      |
[]________________________________________[]_________________[]_____________[]

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 05:56:48 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value

 
> >  The gearheads, such as Anders Backman, are so deeply rooted in
> >  their
> > belief in Physics, and science in general, that they have allowed
> > them to pull the plug on their imaginations.  How one can play a RPG
> > without imagination is beyond me.  By the way, Mr. Backman, we are
> > all very impressed with the list of "scientists" that you have as
> > players. Ooooo......Ahhhhhhh.  
> > 
> <Loud Clapping>
> Here, here, Chap...good show.

One, it's " hear, hear."  Two, you miss the point.  The notion that
science exists _instead_ of imagination is at best silly.  The point
people such as Anders (myself included in this group) are trying to
make is that there are real physical limits to many of the
work-a-day problems of the traveller universe.

Like it or not, you need to recognize that something like a EM
sensor has an upper limit of effieciency that we can characterize
now (simply by looking at a perfect 100% efficient receiver, for
example).

It has been stated in this very thread that the principal benefit of
reality as a baseline model is that you get consistancy thrown in
for free.

The point of going to all this trouble is that people who don't care
about reality (and consistancy) can always simplify, but if you try
to make things like ship design systems, combat rules, etc, it is
nice to have it map to at least the first order expectations of
players who will notice.

As an aside, the notion that something like Star Wars (mentioned
before in this thread) is consistant is nonsense.  I can think of
numerous simple solutions to the plot that their physics allow that
wouldn't make the story as interesting.  ID4, as another example,
was incredibly stupid because the apparent goal of the aliens
(destruction) would have been better served by slamming a single
fighter (crewless) into each city at a high velocity.  Nobody with a
course in baby physics (or a few Novas) under their belt could
stomache that without griping.  The trick is that if you want a plot
like that, you need to at least say *why* they decided to hover
within F-18 range so it isn't as goofy.

Frankly, it frequently requires more imagination to pay out a harder
SF setting since you aren't allowed the thoughtless "'cause that's
the way I say it works" easy out.

- -Merrick

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 23:48:32 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Fighters revisted

In mail you write:

>>To quote from the only *decent* Episode of Galactica 1980:
>
>    I disagree.  There were no decent episodes of Galactica 1980, much to
> my bitter disappointment.

"The Return of Starbuck" was quite good as long as you ignored the
"frame" story. It was at leasty as good as any of the original BG
episodes. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 01:55:12 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Beyond the [solomani] rim...

In mail you write:

> Whats the name of the sector "below" (away from core) the Solomani Rim (as
> looking down on a 2 dimensional map:)

Aldebaran

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 01:48:49 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Sylea --> Capitol

In mail you write:

> On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Leonard Erickson wrote:
>
>> I'm starting a database of Traveller "geography", sectors, subsectors,
>> stars, planets...

<snip>

> I'm insterested in this database (as for any information that I can add to
> my Traveller universe).

Well, when I get it "done", I'll have to arrange for it to be on a web
page or at an FTP site. When I get that far, I'll post the sector name
data to the list, as folks will need that to be able to enter data in
my format.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 00:02:21 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: CSC Armor?

In mail you write:

> Hmm, think about this. Let's say I want to build a wall with AV 40. I
> have a material with touchness 5. Then we get the following formula:
>
> thickness = (40/5)^/3 = 216 cm
>
> That's quite a lot of armor! 
>
> If I then instead use 4 separate walls of armor each with AV 10 using
> the same material I get:
>
> For one of the base walls
>
> thickness = (10/5)^3 = 8 cm
>
> for all 4 walls counted together that equals 32 cm, which is well... a
> BIG difference.

That's because you assume that 4 AV 10 walls equal an AV 40 wall. 
I don't think it works that way.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 15:07:45 MET
From: "Volker A. Greimann" <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
Subject: Core Sector Subsector Names?

Does anybody happen to know all the Subsector Names in Core Sector?
I haven't found them in M:0, even the Map doesn't name them in the 
space provided for the names. A few are in TD 9 which i have, but 
some are still missing!
Could anybody help me, since i am trying to make a complete and 
better map myself! Thanks already!

BTW: Have the Galactic guys already started to implement the M:0 data 
into the program? When is the next version due?

Ad Astra,

V.A.G.       
- ------  Volker A. Greimann, also known as: Grei5001@uni-trier.de  ----
- -- Am Weidengraben 86,C6 - 54296 Trier - Germany - T+F: +49651148846 -
- --- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/4061 ---
- ---- Student of Law, Gamer, Illuminatus Primus, Slayer of Windows95 --
- -----  "Don't hold me up: I am just barely ahead of insanity!!!" -----

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 00:26:03 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Subject: Fighters revisted

In mail you write:

> On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, David J. Golden wrote:
>
>> At 03:42 pm 04/10/97 +1000, you wrote:
>> >  Also, why waste
>> >space for control mechnisms and engines and fuel to get the 50g
>> >propulsion?  Fill that space with High Explosives.
>> 
>>       High explosives are a complete waste of money in space missiles. The bang
>> you get out of the chemical explosion ain't diddly, compared to the kinetic
>> energy of mass alone. 
>
> Then they will add weight (or we will add weight) to increase the
> explosive potential, or add radiation, whatever, but the space can be
> better used.

If you double the mass you double the bang. But if you double the
*velocity* you quadruple the bang. Since the energy goes up linearly
with mass, but as the *square* of the velocity, the drives are very
much worthwhile.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 00:04:50 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

In mail you write:

>>TL12-15 computers definitely won't have any keyboards
>
> Oh? and what do you suggest using for imput in crowded starport
> lounges or in lecture halls where you don't want to disturb/be
> overheard by others?  Pens? I can type a lot faster than I can write,
> and with less strain. I won't even mention legibility... :)

I suspect that we'll eventually go to "chording" keyboards as they are
faster and smaller. The basic idea is that you have a small number of
keys or buttons, arranged for easy finger access and you "type" by
pressing *combinations* of keys. Thus the "chording".

Beside the fact that they are supposed to be as fast if not faster,
they are usable one handed, and only need to be a bit bigger than the
average hand.

You can also carry a device using one on your hip and take notes with
your hand at your side.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 15:22:24 +0200
From: Per Bernhardsson <bard@ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Jumpdrive

I was just hopping around on the net when I found an interesting article
on Jumpspace by Marc Miller
(http://members.aol.com/kagekiha/traveller/jumpspac.htm). It's a bit old
so he might have changed his mind about some of the stuff there, but the
thing that I found interesting was that hydrogen was only used to as
fuel and coolant for the fusion reactor, it didn't say anything about
needing it to open up a hole in space. Actually there was a pretty good
explanation for that too, but I don't want to cite the whole text.
Anyway he also mentioned using an antimatter plant or even solar power
to fuel the jump.

Not that this would change the game much though even if one would allow
this since antimatter plants don't appear until very high TL. And if you
don't want to give your players an ancient starship it shouldn't be too
much of a problem. The solar power shouldn't be too much problem either,
it just takes too long time to charge. What group of players would want
a ship which would have to wait perhaps several days to charge up the
jumpdrive.

 / Per

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 23:11:50 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Question- IR sigs for small craft.

In mail you write:

> Can you give a similar analysis for the following ship style.
>
> A small 5-10 Grav plate driven craft with no internal life support. The
> Pilot would be using Space Battledress for his life support.

*Any* ship in space in the "life zone" of a star is going to be at
around 300K on the sunlit side. If it is dark colored, it'll be hotter.
The dark side will be at a temp determined by a balance between the
internal temp (most electronics and the like are going to heat it
almost as much as life support) and the amount of heat it can radiate
to the 3K background of empty space.

The fusion plant is gonna be a major heat source, and we don't know
what kind of IR signature thrust plates have.

In any case, the ship *has* to be designed to maintain a certain
temp range to avoid temp effects on the components! Not very many items
work the same over large temp ranges.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 23:30:27 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

In mail you write:

> At 10:15 AM 4/11/97 +0100, Anders Backman wrote:
>>>> It's in *everyone*'s best interests to make Trav reality match the
>>>> physical universe as closely as possible, minimizing hand-waved
>>>> exceptions.  The reason can be expressed as the Law of Unintended
>>>> Consequences:  "Every action taken to achieve a goal will also achieve
>>>> one or more unintended consequences, which may directly or indirectly
>>>> interfere with that goal, or cause greater harm elsewhere."
>
> Given this, why does T4 persist in using a 2D map for sectors?  I know, I
> know, it supposed to be just an abstraction.  Still...

It doesn't hurt anything. You can easily play the game with 3d sectors.
Only thing is, it makes maps messy, and navigation a *royal* pain. I
have looked at several "3d" maps from various games, and some "3d" star
displays. The maps are *very* hard to use. The displays on the computer
aren't much better, because it's hard to rotate them. (If anybody has a
source for a freely rotating "knob" that gives a digital 0-255 "angle"
readout at TTL levels, I'd love to know the source. It must *not* have
a stop.)

So 2d *is* a simplification, but it doesn't affect anything except
playability. Playable 3d sectors (much less combat) require either 3d
*models* of the sectors, or computers.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 23:50:16 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: IR masking.

In mail you write:

> I heard recently information on how reaserch into sound waves has produced
> technology that can deaden sound by transmitting an inverse of the wave.
> Now, taking some assuptions from what I know of physics, I have a theory
> on a way to mask IR.
>
> 1) Infrared is an electromagnetic emission.
>
> 2) Electromagnetic energy has properties of a wave.
>
> 3) Waves can be dampened by transmitting an inverse of the wave into the
> wave.
>
> So, if a ship can sense, perhaps with sensors along it's hull, it's own
> emissions, then it can transmit an inverse of the wave, perhaps with
> something similar to a radio transmitter, since radio is a type of EM
> emission, set to emit in the IR wavelength. This would be very difficult
> to get perfect, so it would only dampen the emission, not eliminate it.
>
> This, in theory, is how EMM would work in Milenu 0. This also may be the
> founding principle on cloaking.

First problem. The whole technique requires that you be able to take
the data from the sensors, process it, and get it to the emitters
*before* the wave you want to cancel gets there. Unfortunately, this
requires FTL wiring and signal processing gear.

We can cancel sound only because it is so much slower than the speed at
which signals travel through wires (which is considerably under c).

Second problem. The canceled waves wind up as heat.... :-)

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 01:06:13 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: IR masking

In mail you write:

>>The problems here are many:
>>
>>* You can't analyze and re-emit fast enough; by the time you know what the
>>wave looks like, it's already on its way to the enemy.  You can't outrace
>>the wave signalling ahead to a later emitter, either.
>
> Wouldn't need to do it like that. You can have a record of typical emissions
> the ship produces in a given situation and transmit based on that
> information. This would go a long way in dampening the emissions made by the
> power plant.

Nope. You have to match the emitted waveform *exactly in phase,
frequency and amplitude. Otherwise you are *increasing* the emissions. 

Using a recording of previous emissions would be like trying to cancel
the rap music leaking in from your neighbor by playing the same record!

>>* Finally, the clincher, though I've left it for last as it's hardest to
>>explain.  Owing to the nature of entropy, the process of gathering data
>>and correlating the signals would generate *more* heat than you
>>"canceled".  Ouch.  Gotta hate that Second Law...
>
> Data gathering would simply be passive IR sensors along the hull to correct
> for past data gathered. If a change is detected, and observed by the sensors
> over a period of a minute or so, a counter signal can be transmitted to
> dampen that until the sensors detect that emision to cease. If the signal
> becomes permanent, it could be a sign of a maintenance problem, etc, but
> would be cataloged and dealt with.

Again, it doesn't work that way. You have to emit a signal that
*exactly* matches the *waveform*. That means nanosecond by nanosecond.
It's not signal *strength* that you are matching. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 23:21:26 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: IR Sensors in Space

In mail you write:

>> Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 14:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
>
>> As for propagation drop...I really think you're seriously under- 
>> estimating just how intrinsically IR 'bright' a starship is, *by its 
>> very nature* (having fusion and livable quarters on board).  Also, 
>> remember we're talking about band-sensitive sensors -- hiding a fusion 
>> drive against a habitable planet or the corona won't work, because the 
>> spectrum will stand out like a sore thumb.
>
> Actually, IIRC EM wave energy is inversely proportional to the square of
> the range (in meters).  Thus even if it does stick out like a sore 
> thumb at 100km doesn't mean it does at 300,000 km.  As it is, the 
> heat level at 300,000km will be .00000011 of the energy at 100km.  The
> fact is that that star is hot, but it is very far away.  The fact is,
> the planet is hot--but it too is very far away.  It is the same problem
> with lasers.  The energy spreads out as the EM Wave propagates. 

I think you misunderstood what he is talking about. He's talking about
*wavelength*, not signal strength. Here's an analogous situation using
visible light. Even if they are the same "brightness", it's *damn* hard
to hide a red ship against a green backround.

That's what band sensitivity does for you. Different temperatures are
different colors. And it makes a big difference in what you can see. 

I'm especially sensitive to the IR bit since one of the local TV
stations got a FLIR camera for their news chopper (the manufacturer is
a local company and gave them a great discount in exchange for getting
mentioned whenever they use it). Temperature differences make for
*marked* differences in visibility.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 00:12:50 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

In mail you write:

>         This has problems, though. It's consumptive of processor resources
> (which is why the 160 mHz 64 bit chip in the Newton 2000 is so much better
> than the 25 mHz 32 bit one in the older models), but that's a minor
> technological problem. It's also, in it's purest form, very
> personal...after training, another user will get worse recognition...you
> just can't swipe a pad off the top, write on it and expect it to recognize
> it. 

You don't need more processor power, just more RAM and a network that
it can download *your* profile from.

>         The second approach, exemplified by the Pilot (and the same
> software on the Newton, called Graffiti) is to make the user use a
> specialized gesture sequence for letterform recognition. This is limiting
> in that the user needs to learn a new alphabet, (and I'd REALLY hate to
> try to decipher the handwritten notes of a heavy Gaffiti user!) This is
> also much faster at lower processor speed.
>
>         This is also known as shorthand. With the ascendancy of rapid word
> processing, shorthand has fallen into disuse, but my mother-in-law could
> still do shorthand faster than she could type, and she could type like a
> vulcan gatling gun could shoot! (being retired, she's out of practice on
> both, but she can still out-type me with one hand tied behind her back)
>
>         Now, if shorthand was taught in schools like typing skills are
> taught today, believe me, HWR devices would be very advantageous over
> keyboards.

See my post about chording keyboards. One variety was developed from a
device Braille users use to type Braille quickly. And Braille has an
*extensive* shorthand. Level 1 Braille is spelling everything out.
Level 2 uses a Special prefix character and codes words and short
phrases. And Level 3 Braille encodes a *large* vocabulary. And all of
this is using 2x3 patterns of dots.

One of my "back burner" projects is to find an electronic copy of the
lebel 2 and level 3 Braille standards and use them for text
compression. After all, they are effectively using 6-bit characters.

So a combo of such shorthands and chording keyboards would *scream*.
Consider that court stenographers use a form of chording keyboard. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 01:25:22 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Low-tech space fighters

In mail you write:

>>And I got to wondering if it'd be possible to design the Micheal using
>>Trav rules. That would shock some players.... Nuclear putt-putt
>>propulsion, gamma ray lasers, 15 inch naval cannon, and anything else a
>>TL8/TL/9 civilization could scrape together.
>
> The Orion propulsion system is not neccessary (two c and two s is the
> spelling right?) as we had the NERVA engine since TL-6. They actually built
> it and tested it for and Isp of 1200 I think.

The Orion has a *much* higher Isp. I'll have to ask on another list
exactly how high, but it's enough higher that it has a negligible mass
ratio for an earth moon flight. It's also about the only currently
practical method of orbiting a million pond or better payload.

It's also well suited for a military vessel as the thrust plate has an
armor value that is simply ridiculous.

> Or you could have some really
> paranoid planet that had a USA <-> Sovjet like armsrace and the orbotal
> space is filled with smartpebbles, smart rocks, nuclear pumped x-ray with
> shitty targetting et c.

There was a story where someone (US, Russia, maybe even China) tried to
start World War III. They were stopped by *Canada*. The Canadaians had
secretly built the missile defense system from hell.

They'd drilled shafts into mountainsides, stuck nuclear bombs at the
bottom and stuff rock, gravel, scrap metal etc into the shafts, on top
of a plug that acted like the wadding in a shotgun shell. The result
was a set of nuclear powered shotguns that wiped out all the missiles,
along with everything in LEO. And denied space to the world for the
next century or so do to all the space junk they'd created and orbited.

> An even more fun setting would be (I think) something on the lines of King
> Davids spaceship where a really low TL plane has developed space travel.
> Klunky Jules Verne space suits, perhaps a regressed asteroid culture to
> avoid the problem of going to orbit at really low TL. Yank out your
> Space1889 book and photocopy all equipment and other illos. Great fun.

If I ever get a copy of the design rules, access to the right reference
materials, and the time, I fully intend to design the various
spaceships that were proposed from WW II on. Start with the Sanger
antipodal bomber, then the Von Braun space program that Disney did the
films about in the early 50s (complete with wheel station and Earth
orbit rendevous lunar launch), and things like Dynasoar and the Manned
Orbiting Laboratory of the early sixties.

In other words *reasonable* designs for TL 5, 6, and 7 space vehicles.
They'll be handy for sticking in areas recovering from the Long Night,
or from the Virus and the Collapse.

I'd like having explorers contact a civilzation that has made it to
another planet in their system (ie done a Mars expedition equivalent)
with 50s technology. 

Ditto for 60s tech. And Maybe even a planet with *30s/40s* tech that
has a moonbase.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 00:35:33 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Sensor strength analysis

In mail you write:

> A useful initial set of bands would be:
>
>   Radio  Far IR  Near IR  Visible Light
>
> Not much of tactical interest gets radiated above the VL band.

Well, I figured that Radio should be broken down, simply because there
*are* bands that have decidely different propogation characteristics.

I also figured that sensor rules need to cover stuff besides tactical
uses. That's why I include UV and Gamma. Players may want to use them
to search for something.

> Perfect.  You'd want ship emission profiles for various fusion-plant power
> output levels, to allow "playing possum" (a favorite trick) to be modeled.
> Or we could skip this in the interests of simplicity.

I can see arguments both ways. But I'd say that it'd be best handled by
giving a table of emmisions versus power plant output. That would be
useful in *all* situations. It doesn't matter much whether you are
running at 100 MW because you are trying to hide or because it's all
your plant can put out. All that matters is output level and radiator
area. 

>> For *design* rules, sensitivity in each band should cost more according
>> to some reasonable progression. And in some bands, it'll require bigger
>> antennas.
>
> On my list above, the farther left you go, the bigger the sensor required.
> That's why it takes the Arecibo dish to get the resolution in the 1 meter
> band that your eyeball gets at 500 nanometers.

And we won't even talk about trying to localize an ELF transmission. :-)

>> Oh yeah, I think communication ranges should use the same rules!
>
> Why not?  It's the same problem in a different guise -- pulling a signal
> out of noise.  It would certainly make jamming rules fall into our laps,
> wouldn't it? :)

Yep. It'd also allow for things like "but what if we rig a UV laser
comm link....

>> Gravitic: Mass detectors, CG detectors, Thruster plate detectors (I'm
>>       allowing for the likely idea that you can distinguish between
>>       these three things, but they are all the same basis stuff
>>       "gravity-like" radiation)
>
> Another good thing to do with this band is look for the gravity-wave shock
> caused by a mass entering or leaving jumpspace.

Yep. 

>> Neutrino: neutrino sensors
>
> Neutrinos come in energy bands too -- you might be able to tell different
> types of fusion plants from stars, and from each other.

Yeah. But I think that may be more complication than we *nedd*. Maybe
an optional rule. And there's also the issue of neutrino vs
antineutrino. Fission releases one, fusion releases the other.

>> Particle radiation: geiger counters, etc. Mostly useful for detecting
>>       solar flates of particle beam "near misses".
>
>   "Warning, this is the ship's computer, all personnel are instructed to don
>   standard issue lead-lined underwear.  Thank you for your cooperation." :)

"Well, captain, I think it's safe to assume that we've located Ignark's
lost uranium mine"

"Why do you say that?"

"Because the radiation meters say that you'd get a lethal dose in
about 2 minutes outside!"

>> EM radiation: This should be broken down into individual bands.
>>       1. long wave (any radio that will pentrate water/gas giant
>>               atmosphere to reasonable depths)
>>       2. medium wave (any radio that will pentrate a planetary ionisphere)
>>       3. short wave (anything up to a few cm wavelength)
>>       4. radar (cm to mm wavelength)
>>       5. IR (do we need sub-bands?)
>>       6. Optical
>>       7. UV 
>>       8. X-ray/gamma ray
>
> Pulling radio into 3 bands is fairly useful.  The band you call 'radar' is
> often used for that, but 'microwave' is a more common label.  I'd think
> splitting IR into far and near is a useful thing to do, just to put 300 K
> and ~10,000 K sources into different buckets.  And UV+ I'm having trouble
> imagining what it'd be looking for.

I agree about microwave. I missed that somehow. And I figured we needed
*atleast* those three bands for radio simply because of the way they act.

>   Young ensign looks up from his console in the midst of battle:
>
>   "Cap'n!  Gamma-ray burst, 312 by 24-4!"
>   "Range, ensign?"
>   "Uh...330 kiloparsecs.  Never mind."
>
> You would see nuke-pumped x-ray lasers and so forth, but they'd put out
> enough in visible and IR that I can't see the need to put in UV+ detectors
> for them.  I'm willing to have the need for UV+ demonstrated, however.

There should be gamma/xray "leakage" from the standard det laser
warheads. That gives the sensors a use in detecting "suspicious" energy
sources. And it may be useful for survey type applications.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1182
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest      Saturday, April 12 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1183



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: The Imperial Yacht
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Re: [TML] Backmans partial space combat system
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Re: Subject: Fighters revisted
Re: Joe Walsh Task System 
Re: [TML] Backmans partial space combat system
Yet more Pigeons
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Re: TAS Form 2 (character sheet)
Re: Realism vs. Play Value
Re: Vargr Miniatures
Re: Yet more Pigeons
CG units, not broken.  My Metrics are!
Re: IR masking
Re: IR Masking
Re: IR masking
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Re: Realism vs. play value
Re: IR masking.
Re: IR masking
Re: Low-tech space fighters

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 10:12:18 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: The Imperial Yacht

>  So what is the Traveller connection?  Well, it made me think that Cleon
>I really need a yacht.  Exactly what sort of ship it is, well, I'm not
>sure.  I took a stab with the QSDS rules, using the biggest hull included
>(5000T), and the results were interesting.  A J3 M4 ship with no

And the list chants: "post! post! post! post!"

**********************************************************
  Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
 CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 10:12:15 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

>	Actually, the fact that you can type faster than you can write,
>and more legibly, is determined quite a bit by the fact that you routinely
>use a keyboard to enter information, rather than handwriting. Given that

Actually, even when I was in my heaviest "handwriting mode" back taking notes
furiously in nursing school, I could still type faster. I think its a combo
of just having very slow handwriting styles and a touch of arthritis that
typing disturbs less than writing does.

>	The second approach, exemplified by the Pilot (and the same
>software on the Newton, called Graffiti) is to make the user use a
>specialized gesture sequence for letterform recognition. This is limiting

Good idea, I hadn't thought about shorthand. My mother can still write in it
from her days as a secretary, though she has to think about it a bit. I can
remember when I was a child that she could easily keep up with anyone who was
speaking (faster than, as you said, her rapid fire typing skills).

**********************************************************
  Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
 CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 10:37:32 -0400
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: [TML] Backmans partial space combat system

>Anybody interested in looking at it mail me for a copy (it's about 15K
>straight ascii) as I thought it was too big for mailing on the list
>directly.
>
I would like a copy of this. 

Bob
bsanders@amghome.com

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 97 15:41 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.95.970408130731.11669A-100000@pill.Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>

Computers evolve very quickly; I suspect our predictions of what things 
will be like in 4000 years time will be about as accurate as the IBM 
spokesman who, 40 years ago, said the world would never need more than 6 
computers...

A few thoughts:

- - the idea of having 'a computer' will become meaningless. Everyone will 
have access to a global net 24 hrs a day, wherever they are, through 
something as small and common as a watch. Processing could take place on 
the other side of the world.

- - the idea of a 'user interface' will become meaningless. Speech and 
handwriting recognition will be near enough 100% accurate, and the 
(pseudo) AI will be smart enough to deal with things like, 'book me a 
seat on the next shuttle to Tokyo', 'is there anything good on TV 
tonight?', or 'open the pod bay doors'. Output will be projected onto 
the nearest available screen (including your glasses - or better still, 
directly onto your retina) or heard through a tiny speaker in an earring 
(or implanted).

    ---------=========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: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 08:53:54 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: Fighters revisted

At 05:45 pm 04/11/97 +1000, you wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, David J. Golden wrote:
>
>> At 03:42 pm 04/10/97 +1000, you wrote:
>> >  Also, why waste
>> >space for control mechnisms and engines and fuel to get the 50g
>> >propulsion?  Fill that space with High Explosives.
>> 
>> 	High explosives are a complete waste of money in space missiles. The bang
>> you get out of the chemical explosion ain't diddly, compared to the kinetic
>> energy of mass alone. 
>
>Then they will add weight (or we will add weight) to increase the
>explosive potential, or add radiation, whatever, but the space can be
>better used.

	Certainly the space can be better used than by high explosives--put in
controls, engines and fuel so you have a faint chance of actually hitting
something. They'll add mass as well. 
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 10:34:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: Joe Walsh Task System 

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Paul D. Owensby wrote:

> >Cautious Tasks: Characters can make the task drop to the Easy level by 
> >taking exactly 42 days to complete it.
> 
> Is this 42 days in game time or real time? :)

ROFL!

Uhh....I leave that to referee discretion. [G]


- -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: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 09:59:59 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: [TML] Backmans partial space combat system

At 10:37 am 04/12/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>Anybody interested in looking at it mail me for a copy (it's about 15K
>>straight ascii) as I thought it was too big for mailing on the list
>>directly.
>>
>I would like a copy of this. 

	Ditto, please: goldendj@pcisys.net
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 20:35:16 -0700
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Yet more Pigeons

>From: Andrew Vallance <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
>Subject: Yet more Pigeons

>Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 13:47:07 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>
>Subject: Re: Fighters Again (Long) And Pigeons

>It would appear that the British
>came with or seriously looked at more of these weird ideas than anybody
>else, having a seemingly endless supply of eccentric backroom boffins and
>equally eccentric military commanders willing to give ideas a go. How does
>this relate to traveller? Not much really other than a vague comment that

This relates very well to Space: 1889, of course, a game with more than enough room for 
the most erratic eccentricities.

- --Glenn

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 09:27:02 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

At 07:53 pm 04/11/97 -0700, you wrote:
>At 09:18 PM 4/10/97 -0600, you wrote:
>>At 09:27 am 04/10/97 -0700, you wrote:
>
>>>Well, not exactly. My design for a 20mm single shot sniper rifle does 8D
>>>of damage...;-) But you are right, reasonable handheld weapons do 2 or 3D
>>>of damage. This is, I think, due far more to the coarseness of the T4
>>>damage scale than anything else.
>>
>>	Yes, exactly. According to the hypertext version, the chart on p107, the
>>maximum T4 damage for ANY weapon is 3D. 3g3 DV of 0-4 does 1/2D, 5-12 does
>>1D, 13-25 does 2D, and every value of 3g3 DV above 25 lists 3D in the
>>Traveller damage column. I couldn't find an equation to calculate Traveller
>>Damage based on 3g3 DV. How did you come up with 8D damage?
>
>Read the penetration result as damage.  The formula is DV^.47 -1 for
>Traveller Pen/Damage.  

	OK. I can buy that. But where the h*ll did it come from? The formula is in
there, but labelled Pen, not damage. And why is there a separate column
labelled "Traveller 4th ed. Damage" next to the column labelled "Traveller
4th ed. Penetration?"

>On a related note, I've ruled that the blow-through rules only apply to
>small kinetic rounds (bullets), and lasers.  Explosives, plasma weapons, and
>other "mega-hurt" weapons should do their full damage.

	Agreed. Although I still think there's a fair chance that even small
weapons won't "blow-through." Bones do a fair job of deflecting bullets
inside the body to do more damage.
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 12:04:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: MrKosmos@aol.com
Subject: Re: TAS Form 2 (character sheet)

<LIGHT HEARTED SARCAISM MODE ON>
While reading the TML digest  this morning on the train ride home from wo=
rk I
saw that Kenneth was kind enough to share his T4 character sheet with us.
 However, having not actually game in a few years it seems that a lot has
change and much of your character sheet don=92t make much sense to me.  F=
or
example this part Here:

UAkuCS4JLgkuCS4JLgkuCS4JLgkuCS4JLgkuCS4JLgkuCQ0KDQoNClNPQy4JLgkxMi4gTG9j
YXRpb24uCQkuCTEzLiBOYXRpdmUgTGFuZ3VhZ2UuCQkJCQkJCQkJCQkJLg0KDQoJCVN0YXJw
b3J0CVNpemUJQXRtb3NwaGVyZQlIeWRyb3NwaGVyZQlQb3B1bGF0aW9uCUxhdyBMZXZlbAlU
ZWNoIExldmVsCQ0KUFNJLgkuCXEgQQlxIFBsYW5ldG9pZAlxIFZhY3V1bQlxIERlc2VydCBX
b3JsZAlxIExvdwlxIE5vIExhdwlxIFByZS1JbmR1c3RyaWFsDQoJCXEgQglxIEFzdGVyb2lk
IAlxIFZhYy1UcmFjZQlxIERyeSBXb3JsZAlxIE1vZGVyYXRlCXEgTG93CXEgSW5kdXN0cmlh

I=92m not sure if this is referring to a character=92s Strength or Educat=
ion
score.  And this part:

AACeAgAAnwIAAM0CAADcAgAA4AIAAOQCAAAPAwAAGwMAAB4DAAAkAwAAJwMAACwDAAAvAwAA
NAMAADcDAAA8AwAAPwMAAEQDAABHAwAATAMAAE8DAABRAwAAXgMAAGYDAAB7AwAA2wMAAN4D
AADfAwAA4gMAAOMDAADmAwAA5wMAAOoDAADrAwAA7gMAAO8DAADyAwAA8wMAAPYDAAD4AwAA

Is this really about Mana Points? or am I misreading it?

I do like the way you have Vogon poetry scattered about, but feel that yo=
u
could have left out the stuff about body piercings.=20

Anyway, thanks for sharing the character sheet with us.   Personally I do=
n=92t
think that I will be using your character sheet, it is just too cluttered=
 for
my taste, but it is always nice to see fresh ideas.

<LIGHT HEARTED SARCAISM MODE OFF>

Chris Cox
(chriscox@ix.netcom.com)
The Draconis Cluster Traveller pages
(http://users.aol.com/yanbeck/trav.htm)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 09:34:04 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value

At 06:24 pm 04/11/97 +0000, you wrote:
>>  
>> However, the story is NOT king.  The IMAGINATION is.  We are
>> attempting to look into the future, and determine what those
>> people/civilizations will be capable of.  How can we know?  Is there
>> any way that we can actually know what they will have 2000 years
>> from now??? NO, THERE IS NOT!  
>> 
>>  The gearheads, such as Anders Backman, are so deeply rooted in
>>  their
>> belief in Physics, and science in general, that they have allowed
>> them to pull the plug on their imaginations.  How one can play a RPG
>> without imagination is beyond me.  By the way, Mr. Backman, we are
>> all very impressed with the list of "scientists" that you have as
>> players. Ooooo......Ahhhhhhh.  

	See, I have the exact opposite opinion. I'm an engineer and a gearhead,
but I have no trouble with imagination. I play both fantasy and science
fiction RPGs, but I do draw a line between them. If I wanted to play "space
fantasy" I'd pick up Star Wars, which, incidentally, has a good degree of
internal self-consistency.

	To me, the lack of imagination comes in from people who whine "Oh, reality
won't let me do what I want." I'd rather see what SCIENCE fiction lets me
do, and then apply my imagination to that. People who believe that
playability and realism are on the opposite ends of the spectrum are the
ones who seem to lack the imagination, IMHO. For Example: Larry Niven wrote
"The Ringworld." A bunch of gearheads at MIT sat down, and calculated that
it was unstable (it would fall into the sun if left alone), and stood in
the halls at a science fiction convention chanting that. He didn't chastise
them for THEIR lack of imagination, he applied HIS imagination to USE
reality to come up with a sequel. THAT'S imagination--instead of turning
your back on a logical extension of what you've decreed, USING it.

	And no, none of my players take malicious delight in "ruining" my game by
simply sticking to the rules as I've laid them out. They expect a certain
degree of consistency. If I've said something is possible, and they see a
way to use it, how the hell are they supposed to know that's not something
I'D bothered to think about? That's my fault, not theirs. They're simply
trying to play within my universe.

	Please, nobody take this as a personal flame; my opinion only. OTOH, if
you really must, go right ahead and flame me personally (not the list). I'm
fully capable of surviving it.
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 20:42:09 -0700
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Re: Vargr Miniatures

>From: Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>

>Responding to Mark Bradley:

>>Does anyone know of a good source for Vargr figures?  I'm looking for
>>25mm paintable figures.

>Post a message to Usenet asking for the old Grenadier "Alien Mercenaries"
>figures. There are two Vargr figures per box. I've stockpiled a bunch of
>these for my own campaign and they are excellent![deletion]

This is a good idea.  I've gotten some nice Traveller figures that way.

>Unfortunately, I don't know of any other figs that adequately sub for Vargr.

I keep looking for and at werwolf figures from, maybe, Vampire or Shadowrun, but they 
never please me when I do find them.  I hope that IG commissions some 25mm figures soon. 
RAFM was doing a good job with TNE figures.

- --Glenn

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:23:04 -0700
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Re: Yet more Pigeons

>From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>

>>>  The WWII pigeon bomb was actually an American idea, developed by the
>>>well-known Dr. B. F. Skinner, of operant conditioning fame.  He trained

>>This does sound like the device I saw mentioned. Apparently it was evaluated
>>by the RAF but rejected as inhumane. I didn't know who developed it.

>        Let's see... Pigeon guidance was being implemented in order to
>guide what?  Blind people?  Little old ladies?  High explosive warheads
>whose sole reason for existence was killing large numbers of people in an
>unpleasant fashion and causing massive property damage?
>
>        And they drew the lines at blowing up pigeons?!

Well, come on, it was war time.  You have to maintain your humanity somehow, even if 
it's only by saving the lives of innocent pigeons.  Would it have been better if the RAF 
had been simply emotionless automatons?

- --Glenn

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 12:31:04 -0400
From: Commander X <cmdrx@magicnet.net>
Subject: CG units, not broken.  My Metrics are!

> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 09:56:41 +0200
> From: Per Bernhardsson <bard@ludd.luth.se>
> Subject: Re: Are CG lifters in CSC broken?
> 
> Commander X wrote:
> > 
> > Ok I was trying to develop something using a small CG lifter unit, in
> > CSC I get a min volume of 0.01m^3(1 cubic centemeter) but a mass of
> > .00650T!(6.5kg)  doing a little math, this gives TL-12 CG lifter
> > material a desity of 6,500g/cm^3!  what the heck is this stuff, dwarf
> > star metal?  Surely this must be kg and not tonnes.
> 
> Actually 0.01 m^3 is 10000 cm^3. (There's a factor of 1000000 between
> m^3 and cm^3)
> 
> So I doubt that it really THAT broken. :)
> 
>  / Per
> 
> ------------------------------
Oh! I C now!  I was just multiplying meters to centemeters without
cubing it.  Can you tell I'm American? :)

Thanx for pointing that out.  Well now we can officialy rule out grav
powered handguns, but there are still rifles we can use.  Ok, now i
think i sparked som attention, I will tell y'all the idea we had last
night.  Me and Agent Shien wanted to develop a remote controlled grav
powered weapon.  You could let go of the thing and it would continue to
float in someones face, or you could control it with a HUD-smartlink, vr
gloves or by an aide to the comm-unit on the weapon, (subvocalization). 
The idea was to make the enemy believe u were using psi ability.  Not to
mention it would have been cool as hell!

Now it is PROVEN by rules law that this is not posible, the gun'd be to
danged heavy or large.

But theres always RC drones and poilce robots! :)  


"Always pushing the evelope of current technology
to see what can be done, and passing the savings on to you!"
X-TEK Marketing Slogan
- -- 
Commander X
(cmdrx@magicnet.net <or> bprankard@theiia.org)
Creator, Maintainor, and Webmeister of "Planet X"
(www.magicnet.net/~cmdrx)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 18:58:21 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: IR masking

Craig Berry writes:
> Speaking of which, my favorite formulation of the Three Laws of
> Thermodynamics:
> 
>   1. You can't win.
>   2. You can't break even.
>   3. You can't quit the game.

But Traveller is a Science FICTION game, and in fiction you can do a lot
you can't do in fact. And the people I game with has the attitude that if
they can't win, or at least break even, then they'll quit the game ;-).


      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: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 19:07:30 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: IR Masking

Rupert Boleyn quotes somebody else as saying:
>>The following laws of physics are INMSHO not breakable by SF handwaving:
>>Conservation of energy
>>Conservation of charge
>>Conservation of momentum

I'd like to point out that using a parallel dimension as a heat sink
wouldn't violate the law of conservation of energy. The energy isn't
destroyed, it's just move to another place. Yet if that would really
allow for perpetuum mobiles (how?) then it wouldn't be any good for
the Traveller universe.


      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: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 12:56:43 -0400
From: russcm@zoomnet.net (Christopher M. Russell)
Subject: Re: IR masking

>Yes, but you still have to *produce* the counteracting signal, and it
>will require a great deal of energy to produce a signal to cancel out
>the heat signature radiating from a starship.

Not nescessarily. I never said cancel out. I said reduce.

>Assuming 100% efficiency (not very likely), you would need to generate
>an amount of energy for your counter-wave equal to the *total*
>radiated energy making up the IR signature of the vessel.

That, if possible, would cancel it out. However, the purpose of the masking
is reduction.

For example, the cooling system of a vessle needs hull space to dispose of
the heat it carries off. This hull space will produce bright spots. There
are a number of methods of reducing bright spots (directional scattering via
faceted sections, large surface area, etc). The infrared countersignal would
simply be one additional method to add to the above.

EM masking for a vessle is a complicated process. Even in present day, IR
reduction is a complex combination of eliminating the heat in the first
place and scattering heat that remains. I would imagine that in Milenu 0, it
is just as complicated, but doable. It cannot be said that just because a
vessle has a power plant of x magnitude that it can be seen at f(x) distance
if it is built with the idea of not being seen easily.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 09:49:51 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

At 07:17 AM 4/12/97 GMT, you wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 19:53:09 -0700, you wrote:
>
>> On a related note, I've ruled that the blow-through rules only apply to
>> small kinetic rounds (bullets), and lasers.  Explosives, plasma weapons, and
>> other "mega-hurt" weapons should do their full damage.
>
>"Mega-hurt"... I like that :)
>
>I assume that the 3d maximum damage applies to "humanoids", since they
>are the main target of most PCs (and NPCs).  If the 3d limit is based
>on how much damage a human(oid) body can take before the attack "blows
>through", a larger target such as a bull elephant would logically have
>a higher limitation.  Conversely, field mice probably max out at less
>than 1D.

I'm working on a system where blow-through levels are based on the mass of
the creature.. 51-100kg would be 3d, and so on.. When it's done, I'll post
it along with my other combat fixes.

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   clown outfits.       -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 18:49:57 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Realism vs. play value

Craig Berry writes:
>Give me a heat sink into a parallel dimension, and I'll give you five
>different above-unity perpetual motion machines.  
>
>>The problem is to make sure your new laws dosen't have undesired 
>>ramifications. Take the heat sink idea, for example. Postulate the
>>availability of a heat sink inside a starship and no other changes in
>>the laws of physics. Would that allow other, undesirable, effects?
>>(Like drawing power out of thin air).
> 
>And the answer is, yes, it would.  

OK, please explain how. It's not that I doubt you, it's that I don't
understand how that would work. I would have thought that having a hole
where you can pour in energy, but not take it out again, would result
in a net energy loss. I can't understand how you can turn that into an
energy-producing gizmo.

>The closest things to IR masking you can do without breaking physics 

Actually, introducing a parallel dimension isn't breaking physics, it's
extending it.

>and introducing unintended consequences are:
> 
>(a) Chill the side of the ship toward your opponent, radiate a *lot* more
>    heat off the other side.  This takes truly scary amounts of power,
>    and still only gives you stealth in one direction -- you're visible
>    for light-hours from the other directions.
> 
> (b) Use flares/decoys to confuse the IR target picture, losing yourself
>     in the clutter.

How about an extremely efficient heat storage device? I know that that will
also give you extremely efficient energy storage, which is why I didn't
suggest it before, but can it be adjusted not to break other parts of
the Traveller technology?

(And, btw., how long can you "mask" a starship using it's capacitors as a
heat storage device?)


      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: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 13:16:21 -0400
From: russcm@zoomnet.net (Christopher M. Russell)
Subject: Re: IR masking.

>> So, if a ship can sense, perhaps with sensors along it's hull, it's own
>> emissions, then it can transmit an inverse of the wave, perhaps with
>> something similar to a radio transmitter, since radio is a type of EM
>> emission, set to emit in the IR wavelength. This would be very difficult
>> to get perfect, so it would only dampen the emission, not eliminate it.
>>
>> This, in theory, is how EMM would work in Milenu 0. This also may be the
>> founding principle on cloaking.
>
>First problem. The whole technique requires that you be able to take
>the data from the sensors, process it, and get it to the emitters
>*before* the wave you want to cancel gets there. Unfortunately, this
>requires FTL wiring and signal processing gear.

Actually, even though it sounds like it, that is not exactly the method I
was refering to.

The sensors along the hull detect the signals over time, and compares them
with a database of typical produced signals for that operation situation. If
there is a change over time, and especially if it a change that is different
than expected, then the signal out can be modified.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 13:16:24 -0400
From: russcm@zoomnet.net (Christopher M. Russell)
Subject: Re: IR masking

>> Wouldn't need to do it like that. You can have a record of typical emissions
>> the ship produces in a given situation and transmit based on that
>> information. This would go a long way in dampening the emissions made by the
>> power plant.
>
>Nope. You have to match the emitted waveform *exactly in phase,
>frequency and amplitude. Otherwise you are *increasing* the emissions. 
>
>Using a recording of previous emissions would be like trying to cancel
>the rap music leaking in from your neighbor by playing the same record!

I take it you're not a rap fan.

Neither am I :)

Actually it's frequency, amplitude, and 180 degrees out of phase. Since we
are talking about an application to a tech problem several centuries into
the future, we can assume that tech exists that can emit IR signals of a
specific hertz, magnitude, and phase without a heat based emiter, such as a
broad band low power EM emiter tuned to emit with that signature. Would
still need power, but would not become a very bright spot.

But since you did mention increasing emissions, it gave me the idea for
using this method for another purpose. If you are a small military courier,
for example, and wnated to be left alone in potentially hostile area, you
could tune your IR signiature to be equal to that of a battleship.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 12:56:12 -0400
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: Low-tech space fighters

Leonard Erickson wrote:
[chainsaw noises]

>
>If I ever get a copy of the design rules, access to the right reference
>materials, and the time, I fully intend to design the various
>spaceships that were proposed from WW II on. Start with the Sanger
>antipodal bomber, then the Von Braun space program that Disney did the
>films about in the early 50s (complete with wheel station and Earth
>orbit rendevous lunar launch), and things like Dynasoar and the Manned
>Orbiting Laboratory of the early sixties.
>
>In other words *reasonable* designs for TL 5, 6, and 7 space vehicles.
>They'll be handy for sticking in areas recovering from the Long Night,
>or from the Virus and the Collapse.


	Remember that Traveller:1965 campaign idea I floated a while back?
I actually got some timeline work done on it (I'm up to the early 1950's),
and have gone snooping around the Web for inspiration.  You might really
enjoy Mark Wade's Encyclopaedia of Manned Spaceflight web page.  Lotsa good
stuff there.  The T65 campaign is backburnered for the moment (Ross has got
some wierd StoryTeller-based thing set in the 20's planned for
spring/summer; I'm betting Cthulhu, personally) but I'd like to get it
finished and into play at some point...

	If you want to collaborate on any design work, let me know.  My
last exam is May 2nd, and after that I'm fleeing the groves of academe for
good (yay!) and will have time on my hands to devote to this kind of stuff.

	And what was the Sanger antipodal bomber?

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1183
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest      Saturday, April 12 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1184



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Consequences of Jump Uncertainties
Re: Computer Tech
Re: Are CG lifters in CSC broken?
Re: Optional G-Comp Stacking
Re: Realism vs. Play Value
Re: Fighters revisted
Re: Low-tech space fighters
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Re: TAS Form 2 (character sheet)
Consequences of Jump Uncertainties
Re: [TML] Backmans partial space combat system
Re: Optional G-Comp Stacking
Re: IR Masking
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Re: Neutrinos
Re: Computer Tech
Re: Sensor strength analysis

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 97 13:09:34 -0500
From: Marcus <uphhsmt@gemini.oscs.montana.edu>
Subject: Consequences of Jump Uncertainties

- -- [ From: Marcus * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --

Hello,
	I've been thinking about the positional variation when doing a jump.  It
lead me to believe that there should be a time uncertainty as well.  It
would be interesting to note that the typical jump takes 1 week, then their
should be a consistent uncertainty of time involved.  If the time
uncertainty is plus or minus a day, then the strategies associated with an
attack on another system become very different from massing the fleet,
jumping, and attacking any enemy vessels.  This implies a need for very
large ships carrying smaller attack craft through the jump. It would be
interesting to hear what the list-members think.  If this thread has already
been done to death in the past, I apologize in advance.
- --
TANSTAAFL, YCHTBE,
Marcus A. Teter
uphhsmt@gemini.oscs.montana.edu
Dept. of Physics
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 97 13:12:46 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: Re: Computer Tech

In a message dated 1997-04-11 13:41, Per Bernhardsson wrote:

>Erwin Fritz wrote:
>> 
>> Refresh my poor memory. What's DVD?
>
>Digital Video Disk

Nope. Not anymore.

The marketing wizards decided that this "pigeonholed" the technology too 
much, after all the DVD's are intended to hold Data, music, whatever 
digital stuff we can throw into them.

The "official" meaning of the acronym is now Digital Versatile Disk.

===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 97 13:12:42 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: Re: Are CG lifters in CSC broken?

In a message dated 1997-04-11 21:47, Commander X wrote:

>Ok I was trying to develop something using a small CG lifter unit, in
>CSC I get a min volume of 0.01m^3(1 cubic centemeter) but a mass of
>.00650T!(6.5kg)  doing a little math, this gives TL-12 CG lifter
>material a desity of 6,500g/cm^3!  what the heck is this stuff, dwarf
>star metal?  Surely this must be kg and not tonnes.

1 cm = 0.01 m

Therefore: 1 cu. cm = 0.01 m x 0.01 m x 0.01 m = 0.000001 cu. m
       and 0.01 m^3 = 10,000 cm^3

So... the density is 0.65 g/cm^3. Damn thing floats! Maybe it's broken in 
the other direction...


===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 97 13:12:50 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: Re: Optional G-Comp Stacking

In a message dated 1997-04-10 21:51, Eris Reddoch wrote:

>On 04/10/97 at 09:39 AM,  Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org> said:
>
>> Want 9G compensation at TL-12? Simple. Multiply 3G compensator volume by
>> 3. Envelop pilot's area (2 cu. m or so). Pay through the nose. Remember:
>> The structure must be designed to handle the desired G's.
>
>>     Comp. Vol. = ( Desired G Comp. / Max. G Comp ) ^ 3 * Std. Vol.
>
>Bill, just a little more than multiply by 3. <g>  At TL12 getting 9g would
>be:   (9/3)^3 = 3^3 = 27 * the required volume, mass, power and cost.

Tee-hee.

I *love* it when my silly mathematical blunders get blamed on someone 
else...

Eris, *I* wrote that bit. ComdrX had nothing to do with it.

I guess just because he thought 0.01 m^3 = 1 cm^3, you assumed he doesn't 
know 3^3=27.

:-)

===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 19:52:48 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value

On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 05:56:48 -0600 (MDT), you wrote:

> Frankly, it frequently requires more imagination to pay out a harder
> SF setting since you aren't allowed the thoughtless "'cause that's
> the way I say it works" easy out.

[THE "APPLAUSE" SIGN IS NOW LIT]

Hear, hear, Chap...good show.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 19:52:50 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Fighters revisted

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 23:48:32 PST, you wrote:

> In mail you write:
>=20
> >>To quote from the only *decent* Episode of Galactica 1980:
> >
> >    I disagree.  There were no decent episodes of Galactica 1980, much=
 to
> > my bitter disappointment.
>=20
> "The Return of Starbuck" was quite good as long as you ignored the
> "frame" story. It was at leasty as good as any of the original BG
> episodes.=20

I cant believe somebody is actually defending "Galactica 1980".  It
didn't even have Athena in it (I think :)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 19:52:52 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Low-tech space fighters

On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 01:25:22 PST, you wrote:

> There was a story where someone (US, Russia, maybe even China) tried to
> start World War III. They were stopped by *Canada*. The Canadaians had
> secretly built the missile defense system from hell.
>=20
> They'd drilled shafts into mountainsides, stuck nuclear bombs at the
> bottom and stuff rock, gravel, scrap metal etc into the shafts, on top
> of a plug that acted like the wadding in a shotgun shell. The result
> was a set of nuclear powered shotguns that wiped out all the missiles,
> along with everything in LEO. And denied space to the world for the
> next century or so do to all the space junk they'd created and orbited.

So THAT'S what that noise was.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 19:52:46 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

On Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:18:23 -0600, you wrote:

> At 09:27 am 04/10/97 -0700, you wrote:
> >On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, David J. Golden wrote:
> >
> >Snippage about 3G3...
> >
> >> 	Again, not directly related, but useable. I haven't decided whether=
 I like
> >> it yet, but I'm rather persnickety. Greg seems very thorough. The =
biggest
> >> issue I've seen, browsing through it, is that no matter how big a =
weapon
> >> gets, his T4 conversion produces a damage of 3D. Period.
> >
> >Well, not exactly. My design for a 20mm single shot sniper rifle does =
8D
> >of damage...;-) But you are right, reasonable handheld weapons do 2 or=
 3D
> >of damage. This is, I think, due far more to the coarseness of the T4
> >damage scale than anything else.
>=20
> 	Yes, exactly. According to the hypertext version, the chart on p107, =
the
> maximum T4 damage for ANY weapon is 3D. 3g3 DV of 0-4 does 1/2D, 5-12 =
does
> 1D, 13-25 does 2D, and every value of 3g3 DV above 25 lists 3D in the
> Traveller damage column. I couldn't find an equation to calculate =
Traveller
> Damage based on 3g3 DV. How did you come up with 8D damage?


Actually, the rule states that "no character can suffer any more than
3D damage"-- the weapon itself can still deliver more than that,
however (reduced by armour and other stuph).

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 19:52:49 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: TAS Form 2 (character sheet)

On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 12:04:37 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:

> <LIGHT HEARTED SARCAISM MODE ON>
> While reading the TML digest  this morning on the train ride home from =
work I
> saw that Kenneth was kind enough to share his T4 character sheet with =
us.
>  However, having not actually game in a few years it seems that a lot =
has
> change and much of your character sheet don=92t make much sense to me. =
 For
> example this part Here:
>=20
> =
UAkuCS4JLgkuCS4JLgkuCS4JLgkuCS4JLgkuCS4JLgkuCQ0KDQoNClNPQy4JLgkxMi4gTG9j
> =
YXRpb24uCQkuCTEzLiBOYXRpdmUgTGFuZ3VhZ2UuCQkJCQkJCQkJCQkJLg0KDQoJCVN0YXJw
> =
b3J0CVNpemUJQXRtb3NwaGVyZQlIeWRyb3NwaGVyZQlQb3B1bGF0aW9uCUxhdyBMZXZlbAlU
> =
ZWNoIExldmVsCQ0KUFNJLgkuCXEgQQlxIFBsYW5ldG9pZAlxIFZhY3V1bQlxIERlc2VydCBX
> =
b3JsZAlxIExvdwlxIE5vIExhdwlxIFByZS1JbmR1c3RyaWFsDQoJCXEgQglxIEFzdGVyb2lk
> =
IAlxIFZhYy1UcmFjZQlxIERyeSBXb3JsZAlxIE1vZGVyYXRlCXEgTG93CXEgSW5kdXN0cmlh
>=20
> I=92m not sure if this is referring to a character=92s Strength or =
Education
> score.  And this part:
>=20
> =
AACeAgAAnwIAAM0CAADcAgAA4AIAAOQCAAAPAwAAGwMAAB4DAAAkAwAAJwMAACwDAAAvAwAA
> =
NAMAADcDAAA8AwAAPwMAAEQDAABHAwAATAMAAE8DAABRAwAAXgMAAGYDAAB7AwAA2wMAAN4D
> =
AADfAwAA4gMAAOMDAADmAwAA5wMAAOoDAADrAwAA7gMAAO8DAADyAwAA8wMAAPYDAAD4AwAA
>=20
> Is this really about Mana Points? or am I misreading it?
>=20
> I do like the way you have Vogon poetry scattered about, but feel that =
you
> could have left out the stuff about body piercings.=20
>=20
> Anyway, thanks for sharing the character sheet with us.   Personally I =
don=92t
> think that I will be using your character sheet, it is just too =
cluttered for
> my taste, but it is always nice to see fresh ideas.

Strange, I received it just fine.  Could you forward me a copy of your
translation... I have friends that might be interested in Ken's views
on body piercing :)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 97 14:31:24 -0500
From: Marcus <uphhsmt@gemini.oscs.montana.edu>
Subject: Consequences of Jump Uncertainties

- -- [ From: Marcus * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --



Hello,
	I've been thinking about the positional variation when doing a jump.  It
lead me to believe that there should be a time uncertainty as well.  It
would be interesting to note that the typical jump takes 1 week, then their
should be a consistent uncertainty of time involved.  If the time
uncertainty is plus or minus a day, then the strategies associated with an
attack on another system become very different from massing the fleet,
jumping, and attacking any enemy vessels.  This implies a need for very
large ships carrying smaller attack craft through the jump. It would be
interesting to hear what the list-members think.  If this thread has already
been done to death in the past, I apologize in advance.
- --

- --
TANSTAAFL, YCHTBE,
Marcus A. Teter
uphhsmt@gemini.oscs.montana.edu
Dept. of Physics
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 97 16:46:05 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: [TML] Backmans partial space combat system

On 04/12/97 at 10:37 AM,  Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com> said:

 >Anybody interested in looking at it mail me for a copy (it's about 15K
 >straight ascii) as I thought it was too big for mailing on the list
 >directly.

Anders, I'd like a copy as well...or have I already told you that? ;->


Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 97 16:44:08 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Optional G-Comp Stacking

On 04/12/97 at 01:12 PM,  Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca> said:

> In a message dated 1997-04-10 21:51, Eris Reddoch wrote:

> >Bill, just a little more than multiply by 3. <g>  At TL12 getting 9g
> would >be:   (9/3)^3 = 3^3 = 27 * the required volume, mass, power and
> cost.

> Tee-hee.

> I *love* it when my silly mathematical blunders get blamed on someone 
> else...

> Eris, *I* wrote that bit. ComdrX had nothing to do with it.

Yeah, the Cmdr pointed that out yesterday. ;-> OTOH, it was his funky
quoting (or lack thereof) that caused it, so he's *still* to blame!! ;-p

> I guess just because he thought 0.01 m^3 = 1 cm^3, you assumed he doesn't
>  know 3^3=27.

Hee!  It's not like I never make mathmatical errors.  Like I was telling
one of my students yesterday, "Elementary Statistics was the most
interesting course I ever had to take...twice times." ;->

The "pseudo-science" vs "total-handwaving" argument going on right now is
hard on me.  It would be *so* much easier for me handwave everything and
tell the players, "I don't know why, it just IS!", but my deeply repressed
gearhead nature rebels at doing anything without a reasonable explanation. 
I also know the kind of players I have, if  something stretches their
suspension of belief past the breaking point they get silly and the game
goes straight to hell. ;-) 


Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 22:40:05 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: IR Masking

On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 19:07:30 +0200 (METDST), you wrote:

> Rupert Boleyn quotes somebody else as saying:
> >>The following laws of physics are INMSHO not breakable by SF =
handwaving:
> >>Conservation of energy
> >>Conservation of charge
> >>Conservation of momentum
>=20
> I'd like to point out that using a parallel dimension as a heat sink
> wouldn't violate the law of conservation of energy. The energy isn't
> destroyed, it's just move to another place. Yet if that would really
> allow for perpetuum mobiles (how?) then it wouldn't be any good for
> the Traveller universe.

How?  Well, if a dimension exists that you can flood with your
unwanted heat energy an keep it there, by the same logic the reverse
should be possible by drawing energy out of another dimension.  The
occupants of that dimension might complain a little :)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 01:17:19 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

>While it's no answer in the official Traveller timeline (as it extends from
>our current state of affairs), I've always used the premise that cultures
>with the relatively chaep intersteller flight of Traveller would have plenty
>of space and resources, and thus wouldn't have the worship of minaturization
>that the modern western world has.
>
>R. Boleyn

Cool, I like the ref that extrapolates from Traveller future history
instead of some contemporary furure historians. I see Solomani ahead in the
military TLs, computer TLs but lacking in math, biology and especially in
biology, law, etchics that the contemporary Solomani doesn't even consider
TL related items.
One Sf thingy: Why is it always (in SF) democraty that is the natural most
efficient government? Or mhy no Bene Gesserit orgs that keep them
bloodlines in order for the longterm good. Whas Norris gay for
political/sexual/or bloodlines reasons?


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 15:22:16 -0700
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)
Subject: Re: Neutrinos

>Yeah, Missiles Sup. had those, I think.  The problem with neutrinos
>(IMO) is background.  I just can't imagine the signal to noise being
>high enough unless you were right next to the target.
>
>Also (I've said this before, I think), if you can make a couple kilo
>neutrino detector, then military ships will surround their
>powerplants with these suckers pointed *inwards*.  Now my drive is
>neutrino shielded (you have to be able to shield neutrinos to have a
>decent directional sensor anyway, otherwise its just a geiger
>counter of sorts for neutrinos).

  I think the "shielding detectors" concept won't fly, simply
because the detectors don't interfere with the neutrinos.  That
said, however, you also will be swamped by stellar background
and unable to figure out someones location in anything like
reasonable parameters.  Also, the Book 8 sensor is an order
of magnitude or two too small for the best theoretical model
we can imagine.
       
        Have fun, and re-read your physics texts,
                Steven Hudson

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 01:36:03 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Computer Tech

>Comments, suggestions, thoughts...
>(The Commander gets out his flame retardant suit and fire extinguisher...)
>:)
>
>The Commander at the office,
>(groan...It's a living!)

Well beside the fact that pentiums etc are TL 6 TL (RISC is 1980+ and Intel
doesn't have any) I like your progression. What is lackin though is
innovation. If Robots are reasonable at TL 12+ (Robots supplement) then
robotic like reasoning will be common at TL 12+ ie:
Sir Charles sits down at his desk and asks "Who'd want to fry my ass so
hard they'd risk life at Mithras?"
"Five pointed star, Mr Rappahalladran and most of the high ranking police
representatives in this subsector" a not at all metallic sounding grille in
the wall responds."


The evolution in computers (as in most other important tech is either tech
driven if military important or innovation driven as in computers. Most
people tech literate people are aware aware of the big technological
deficiences of the Intel architecture of CPUs ut it's still a big seller in
the market. The same could be said about displays; everybody knoes that
active matrix, plasma screens are far superior to cathode tubes in quality,
volume, radioation but manufacturers keep churning them out as they fear
the retooling costs.
I see WIMP (windows, icons, menus intyerfaces prevailing until reliable
voice input comes along at TL 8-9+ and this will be superseded by
personality sim interfaces at TL 12+ (strikingly to the intelligent agents
stuff that tech ignoramuses are so fond of today).


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 01:44:25 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Sensor strength analysis

>I think that when it was posted last time, we didn't have the right
>context for it. Now we do.
>
>--
>Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
> shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
>leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

Here goes:
(please try it out before junking it, it is actually quite playable)


>Intercept
>=========
>These rules are very compact and brief so if you do not understand a certain
>part quote it and mail me a question at anders.backman@aniware.se
>
>Backmans double blind sensorrules
>===========================================================================
>======
>This document is a very much simplified part of my Traveller space combat rules
>system. It can be used by any reasonably detailed design system with some work.
>I have skipped on my gravity rules, rules for stable orbits, to hit, damage,
>aerobrake et c because they are too designsystem specific and frankly to hard
>to explain without pictures.
>
>Here's a short example of what is possible with this system:
>The players wants to sneak onto Victoria without the interdiction satellites
>detecting them. The GM runs the satellites and the by the players unknown
>Survey cruiser. The players succeed in exiting jumpspace inside Victorias
>planetary shadow and they stay with PP on idle, popup antennas popped down and
>floorfield off for minimal sig. They wait until Victorias moon Albert passes
>around and when 3 of the interdiction sats are blocked by Albert they fire up
>the PP, thrusts a little and continues gliding towards victoria. They aerobrake
>in Victorias atmosphere as they swing onto the sunside of victoria, ready for
>landing. Before entering the atmosphere for good they dare a quick popup of
>their PEMS but see nothing. No combat, no deaths but still a pretty exciting
>session.
>
>Conventions
>===========
>Dice
>Only D6 dice are used throughout and I have some special rules for making it
>possible to succeed at rolling 13+ and also to fail a 2+ roll on 2D6.
>I will denote all rolls that are possible to increase/decrease with a
>capital D.
>If 12 on 2D6 was rolled, roll 1D6, if 5+ add 1 to result and
>continue rolling this 1D6 until the 5+ roll fails.
>Rolling low is basically the same. Roll 2 on 2D6, then roll 1D6 for 2- and
>continue until failure. Each 2- roll lowers the score by 1.
>
>Logarithms
>I use logarithmic values all the time in my rules but and the most common one
>is listed below:
>
>Value  Log(Value)
>0.5+   -4
>1.5+   -3
>5+             -2
>15+            -1
>50+            0
>150+   1
>500+   2
>1500+  3 et c
>Remember when dealing with logs that adds of logs are equivalent to multiplies
>and subtractions to divisions, +2 equals multiply by 10 and -2 divide by 10 in
>this scale. Ranges follow the same progression:
>1.5 squares, 5 squares, 15 squares, 50 squares et c.
>This logscale is used throughout but with different base values. The one above
>has a base value of 50 which means that 50 equals 0.
>
>Facings and grid
>================
>I use a square grid myself for all maps be it space combat, brawls et c and I
>always use the same facing sectors to divide the plane into 8 similarly sized
>sectors. Those using hexgrids can use six sectors but some of the rules
>regarding blind and semiblind sectors might not work in that case.
>When calculating range for all purposes treat all diagonals as 1.5 squares and
>round the final range down. OK the facing sectors look like this:
>Mark your own location, the first square away from it N, E, W or S is 1 wide,
>squares 2 to 3 away are 3 wide, squares 4, 5 and 6 are 5 wide like this:
>
>                  x x x
>              x x x x x
>        x x x x x x x x
>    x x x x x x x x x x
>o x x x x x x x x x x x
>    x x x x x x x x x x
>        x x x x x x x x
>              x x x x x
>                  x x x
>o
>  x
>    x x
>    x x x x x
>      x x x x x x
>      x x x x x x x x x
>      x x x x x x x x x
>        x x x x x x x x
>        x x x x x x x x
>          x x x x x x x
>          x x x x x x x
>          x x x x x x x
>
>Or put it another way: Go one right, one right and one up, two right and one
>up, three right and one up, two right and one up. Alternate between two and
>three for each step to get it done. If this is hard to follow then use whatever
>sectors you like as long as they are 8 more or less equally sized arcwise. I
>have printed these sectors on overhead film but I rarely use them as I know the
>progression by heart.
>
>My game has MUCH smaller scale to space combat, sensor ranges et c because I
>want to hide behind planetary shadows, aerobrake in atmospheres while fighting
>et c but these rules work with any size squares as long as one sticks to them.
>My squares are 1000 km wide which gives you gameturns of aproximately 5 minutes
>and a thrust vector of 1G is 1 square.
>
>When calculating ranges on a square grid count each diagonal square as 1.5 and
>round down whendone tracing range. This is surprisingly close to pythagoras
>the expected value.
>
>Needed shipstats
>================
>There are some statistics that are required for each target and should be
>precomputed when designing the ship/missile/whatever. Notice that certain
>signatures only are detectable if certain things are in use, others vary
>depending on the level of activity of said device. I normally calculate sigs
>for full use and off but one could calculate powerplant sigs for 100% power and
>10% idle for instance (10% is imply -2 from full due to the logarithmic
>scale). I use four different signatures for each target, the signatures
>are: Active EMS
>or AEMS, Passive EMS or PEMS, Neutrino and Mass.
>
>AEMS: Use surface area/6 or volume^(2/3) if there's no radar area in the
>design system used. Targets with stealth material surface should have
>their area
>severely diminished, perhaps by x0.1, x0.01 or even x0.001
>Base value for radar is 50 m2 or
>Area(m2)       AEMS-signature
>15+                    -1
>50+                    0
>150+           1
>500+           2
>1500+          3 et c
>
>PEMS: Passive EMS get their readings from IR venting from Powerplants,
>reflected light from star(s), rocket plume from reactionthrusters.
>Power(MW)      PEMS-signature
>15+                    -1
>50+                    0
>150+           1
>500+           2
>1500+          3 et c
>
>Area(m2)       PEMS-signature
>50+                    -4
>150+           -3
>500+           -2
>1500+          -1
>5000+          0
>15000+         1
>50000+         2
>150000+                3
>The light from star(s) is added later in the system, therefore the low sig
>here. This sig is the ships reflected sig if in planetary shadow. Stealth
>material hulls and black hulls should perhaps modify this by -2. The light from
>the central star is about +6 in the hospitable zone, +1 for each orbit closer
>and -1 for each orbit further out. The sunfactor never goes below 0 however as
>this is postulated as the background radiation. A detailed formula is:
>Sunfactor = 2xlog10(L/R^2)
>L=Luminosity relative Sol, R=planetary orbit in AUs
>
>Thrust(ton)    PEMS-signature (my system uses different values for diff. types)
>This is the sig for HEPLAR, Fusion, Chem rockets etc but not Thrusters.
>0.015          -1
>0.05           0
>0.15           1
>0.5                    2
>1.5                    3
>5                      4
>15                     5
>50                     6
>150                    7
>500                    8
>1500           9
>5000           10
>15000          11 et c
>
>Neutrino: Neutrino sensor is definately the most important sensor in Travller
>both because it can be mounted under the armor and because it is so hard
>to shield neutrinos and everybody uses fusion powerplants. Neutrinos come from
>fission/fusion powerplants and fission/fusion thrusters.
>Power(MW)      NEUT-signature
>15+                    -1
>50+                    0
>150+           1
>500+           2
>1500+          3 et c
>Notice that for fusion/fission plants the neutrino sig is the same as the
>PEMS-sig for powerplants. Makes the rules a bit easier to use.
>
>Thrust(ton)    NEUT-signature
>Only fission and fusion thrusters have these sigs. The fairy tale HEPLAR is
>supposed to work on chemical principles alone and thus have no NEUT sig.
>15+                    -1
>50+                    0
>150+           1
>500+           2
>1500+          3 et c
>Notice that for fusion/fission thrusters the neutrino sig is the same as the
>PEMS-sig for thrusters - 6. Makes the rules a bit easier to use.
>
>Mass: Mass is hard to cloak and an important signature in my Traveller,
>especially if the targets use antigravity/thrusterplates or floorfield/inertial
>compensators. Note that because of some technobabble my gravscanner sensors has
>to be mounted outside of the hull just like AEMS and PEMS.
>Mass(ton)      MASS-signature
>150+           -1
>500+           0
>1500+          1
>5000+          2
>15000+         3 et c
>
>Thrust(ton)    MASS-signature
>15+                    -1
>50+                    0
>150+           1
>500+           2
>1500+          3 et c
>Notice that mass sig for antigrav/thrusterplates is the same as the
>PEMS-sig for thrusters. Makes the rules a bit easier to use.
>
>Volume(m3)     MASS-signature
>15+                    -1
>50+                    0
>150+           1
>500+           2
>1500+          3 et c
>This is the mass signature from floorfield/inertial compensators. It is based
>on the volume compensated. Actually I base it on volume x Gs compensated but
>that might be too detailed for some referees.
>
>Example:
>The scoutship in TNE is 1400 m3 which gives a surface of ca 125 m2. It masses
>685 tons loaded. The powerplant is a 138 MW fusion plant and it has a HEPLAR
>drive with ca 1370 tons thrust. Lets say it is inertially comped. and living
>area is 500 m3 in size. Lets rate this ship:
>AEMS:  0
>PEMS:  0 Power         -4 Reflected    8 Thrust
>NEUT:  0 Power
>MASS:  0 Mass          2 Antigrav              2 Inertial compensators
>
>
>Rating sensors
>==============
>There are four different types of sensors in my campaign namely:
>Active EMS, Passive EMS, Neutrino and Mass detectors. I use my own design
>system so those converting from FF&S can use the guidelines to below to rate
>their sensors. AEMS are both optical sensors (telescopes) and infrared bunched
>together for simplicity. One could have separate sensors for this but it adds
>to complexity with nothing much gained in realism.
>
>AEMS
>Range(squares) Factor
>1-                             -8
>5-                             -4
>15-                            0
>50-                            4
>150-                   8
>500-                   12 et c
>
>PEMS, NEUT and MASS
>Range(squares) Factor
>1-                             -4
>5-                             -2
>15-                            0
>50-                            2
>150-                   4
>500-                   6 et c
>
>Rating HighGuard designs: There are no sensors in HG so a quick and dirty
>ruling has to be made regarding that. Give each ship AEMS and PEMS ratings of
>computer model nbr - 6. Add size figure from USP for this (if size is less than
>1 use -1 if 10dTon or more, -2 if not). The sensors are assumed to be included
>in the computer price and the bonus for size is the larger surface area for
>antennas. Give large military vessels NEUT and MASS sensors with factors 2 less
>than AEMS/PEMS. Large scouts have NEUT and MASS with without reduction and
>merchants never have anything but AEMS/PEMS (well, maybe Leviathan could find
>uses for a weak NEUT sensor for detecting fusion plants).
>
>Example: The scout in TNE has a 5 hex PEMS, 10 hex AEMS. The densitometer and
>neutrinodetector I have no idea what their ranges are so I will not rate them.
>AEMS:  -2
>PEMS:  0
>
>Sequence of play
>================
>Drift
>Movement
>Sensors
>Combat
>
>Drift
>=====
>Move all ships according to their vector and adjust for gravity effects. Note
>that ships with antigrav units should be able to choose wether gravity affects
>them or not (shouldn't they?). Use Mayday or Battle Rider movement or even BL
>if you can stand the ugly system (borrowed from SPI DeltaVee I think).
>
>I plot my ships moves on a graph paper with 5 mm squares and simply mark an x
>where the ship should be if it didn't thrust.
>
>For gravity effects I calculate several gravity bands by calculating:
>R = 6.4xSQRT(M/A) where M is planet mass and A=0.25 for the limit of 0.5G,
>A=0.75 for the limit of 1G, A=1.5 for the limit of 2G et c. When a ships
>previous location is within a
>gravity band move his drifted location by the amount and direction for the
>previous location. 0.5 G only produce a 1G gravity vector on even turns.
>My gravthrusters/contragrav has thrust egual to designed thrust times local
>gravity so orbital fighters with contragrav can zoom close to planets and
>really get a boost from the planets gravity field.
>
>Movement
>========
>All tracked targets move first. The order within this group is determined with
>a Pilot task roll, highest goes last.
>All untracked targets plot their movement secretly. Note that all ships move
>before any combat take place. This is to avoid the TOTALLY unrealistic effect
>that BL, Mayday etc had by allowing each ship to move and fire in turn.
>
>Sensors
>=======
>Well the rules for sensor plotting may seem strange and complex but are
>actually quite simple and has the benefit of doing away with bogey markers et
>c. You are totally undetected until someone sees you which can be great fun
>when running past customs, doing pearl harbor like attacks etc.
>Each player plots where his sensors will look for targets secretly or a
>competitive Task roll with Fleet tactics decides. Highest result goes last as
>this is advantageous. Sensorscans is basically performed by choosing a square
>called the scanpoint away from your ship, modifying the sensors factor for the
>range to the scanpoint, choosing one of two possible radii around the scanpoint
>and modify factor accordingly.
>Tell the opponent the sensor type (AEMS, PEMS, NEUT or MASS),factor, scanpoint
>and radius. The opponent checks if any of his ships/missiles are within the
>radius and if so; adds the sensors factor to all of his relevant sigs and sees
>if any of these sigs sums is 0 or higher.
>
>There are two sizes; small or normal.
>Normal: Radius is the range to the scanpoint - 1.
>Small: Radius is the range to the scanpoint divided by 2.
>It is entirely legal for players to use smaller radii than those allowed in
>order to fool the opponent about the range between sensing ship and scanpoint.
>All squares within the scanned area has to be visible to the scanning ship to
>be legal, move scanpoint or reduce radius if not. This is the single most
>common error my players do when playing this system so be careful.
>
>Modifications to sensorfactor
>The sensorfactor is modified by three different circumstances:
>
>Range to scanpoint affects the factor differently for passive and active
>sensors:
>Range(squares) Passive Active
>1-                             +4              +8
>5-                             +2              +4
>15-                            0               0
>50-                            -2              -4
>150-                   -4              -8
>
>Small or normal sensorscan
>Pin*    +6
>Small  +2
>Normal +0
>*Pin is when you scan in such a tight beam so that only one square is searched.
>When tracking an enemy with lock on at the limits of your sensors range it is
>easy to use Pin as they have to tell you where they'll go before you decide on
>where to put your scancenters.
>
>Skill level of the sensoroperator (optional)
>Roll a task in whatever task system used:
>(these modifiers are set to discourage using this task unless highly skilled)
>Result                                 Modifier
>Exceptional success            +2
>Success                                        0
>Failure                                        -2
>Exceptional failure            -4
>
>Sunfactor (optional but really fun to use)
>==========================================
>The sun or suns affect sensors and add some interesting tactical complications
>to space combat. The direction to the sun is important because sensorscans in
>that direction are harder for obvious reasons. The sun also affects a targets
>reflective signature making it easier to detect if illuminated by the sun(s).
>If the system consists of one star choose a direction where the sun lies (I
>always use North as sundirection for ease of play). Close binaries will
>probably be in the same direction and far binaries will have only one of the
>stars giving off signinficant light.
>To calculate the sunfactor from a particular star use this formula, treat
>negative results as 0 because I choose background illumination to be 0:
>S = 2*log10(L/R^2) + 6
>S = sunfactor, L = starts luminosity, R = distance to star in AU
>If you're lazy (or in a hurry) you can use 6 + orbit number distance from
>hospitable, + for inner system and - for outer system. The result will be more
>or less the same as you can see below for the solar system:
>
>Planet         SF
>==============
>Mercury                8
>Venus          7
>Earth          6
>Mars           5
>Asteroids      4
>Jupiter                3 etc
>
>A ships reflective PEMS sig is actually the one rated above plus SF if
>illuminated by the star. If more than one star is illuminating, add the highest
>SF (remember these are logarithms, adds are really multiplies).
>The scout if in earthorbit and not in planetary shadow will have a reflective
>PEMS sig of -4 +6 = +2.
>
>Scanpoints has to be at least 45 degrees from the suns direction if small and
>at least 90 degrees if normal to not be affected by sunfactor. Those closer
>than these angles subtract the sunfactor from scanfactor if the scanning ship
>isn't in planetary shadow. Note that NEUT sensors are never in planetary
>shadow, those solar neutrinos will pass through planets like nothing. Note also
>that MASS sensors never need to worry about the solar direction but neither can
>they scan through planets like the NEUT ones.
>
>Example: The aforementioned scout chooses a square 17 squares away in
>coordinates x-18 y-45. He uses a normal scan and his PEMS has a factor of 0.
>He rolls a sucess at the sensor task. His factor is:
>0(original) -2(range) +0(success) = -2
>The radius is 16 (17-1)
>He tells the other player "OK I put a PEMS scan at 18 45, factor -2 radius 16
>If the opponent has anything within 16 squares from 18,45 and they have any
>PEMS sig of +2 or higher he has to respond.
>
>Detection
>=========
>Sum the scan factor with your sig and if 0 or higher consult the chart below.
>You must tell the player all sigs that are 0 or better.
>
>Scanfactor + Sig:
>0-1: Indicated;  tell location but not vector, tell highest sig for that sensor
>but not targettype.
>2-3: Detected;  tell location and vector, tell highest sig for that sensor but
>not targettype.
>4+: Locked;  tell location and vector, tell all indicated+ sigs for that sensor
>and targettype.It will remain locked until no sensor from this ship has it
>Indicated or better for a round.
>
>Combat
>======
>a: Beam weapons attack and implement damage.
>b: Surviving missiles hit and implement damage.
>Within each subphase first fire is determined by a shiptactics task roll and
>damage effects are inflicted before the next ship may fire.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1184
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest       Sunday, April 13 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1185



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Re: Computer Tech
Re: IR Masking
Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)
Re: Task System
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII
Re: Sylea --> Capitol
Re: Realism vs. play value
Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing
Re: Task System
Re: Yet more Pigeons
Droyne/Chirpers for TNE (long)
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Re: Task System
Re: [TML] Backmans partial space combat system
Heat sinks
Re: Neutrinos

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 02:05:03 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

>Entertainment typcially leads the rest of the computer industry by 10-20
>years.  This has been true since at least the early 1970s (before there was
>much of a computer industry!).  There are excellent Darwinian reasons for
>this that I'll go into if anyone is really interested (it's pretty much
>off-topic).
>
>Business apps using 3D, VR-like interfaces will become commone when the
>information density is high enough to make 2D too limiting, and when there
>is a real need to be able to interact with others in the same virtual
>space.  It won't happen just because it's cool.  Still, we're within five
>years (easily) of this happening in sectors like news gathering, financial
>information and trading, and resource planning among others.

Information density has never been a factor for when the biz zombies will
start to do stuff.
Info density wenat high enough during the turn of the previous century but
as economical/business interactions are social any tech improvement will be
important first when a tongue-sphincter interaction will be simulated whith
enough fidelity that both the brown-nose and the asshole will feeel as
such;)


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 02:13:17 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Computer Tech

>
>Refresh my poor memory. What's DVD?

Digital Vide Disk but Sony is afradid of that particular acronym 'coz
they're unshure 'bout just what type of consumers that'll dig this shit
(BTW We have our north wall (at work) covered with 1 KHz DVD sample disks
so it's not that far future). When looking at future computing stuff please
disregard any Gibson and, Bill G stuff stuff and rather envision stuff that
you'll really like.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 20:34:43 -0400
From: russcm@zoomnet.net (Christopher M. Russell)
Subject: Re: IR Masking

>
>I'd like to point out that using a parallel dimension as a heat sink
>wouldn't violate the law of conservation of energy. The energy isn't
>destroyed, it's just move to another place. Yet if that would really
>allow for perpetuum mobiles (how?) then it wouldn't be any good for
>the Traveller universe.
>
Just be sure that the dimention you pump it into is not inhabited, lest you
ruin someone's environment and royally tick them off. :)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 17:16:55 -0700
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)

At 06:14 PM 4/11/97 -0400, Christopher M. Russell wrote:
>>And supposedly, the computers on the Shuttle are still using ferrite core
>>memory.  Supposedly each of the computers is less powerful than a 386.
>>Anyone know for certain?
>
>Even scarier, they were made by Apple!

I think you were probably joking, but I wasn't.  I recall seeing an
analysis of the code written for these computers (in assembler, by IBM).
The cost came out to just a little bit more than $1M per line of code in
the finished product.

- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 20:51:31 +0000
From: Mused <marz@HotStar.net>
Subject: Re: Task System

Douglas E. Berry wrote:
> Feeback appreciated!
> 
> SNARF!
> 
> Well, another can of Coke passed through my sinuses on this one.. I may
> print up a copy of this, and leave it where my players will see it...

Why in god's name would you print a picture of yourself nasally expelling carbonated 
beverages?

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 18:14:00 -0700
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

At 12:56 AM 4/12/97 GMT, James Lindsay wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 08:33:56 -0700, you wrote:
>
>> why does T4 persist in using a 2D map for sectors?  I know, I
>> know, it supposed to be just an abstraction.  Still...
>
>One word... "canon".  Do you REALLY want to redraw every "official"
>sector in the Traveller universe in 3D?  Trade routes would change, as
>would political boarders.

Well, I wonder then whether IG is more interested in the small core of old
dedicated players or in expanding to a larger group of customers in the
future.  The former group is vocal and willing to pay for new products, the
latter is much larger, not tied to any particular canon, and _potentially_
more lucrative if tapped correctly.  

>Like 2D combat, 2D star charts are just easier to deal with for most
>people :)

In print, you're probably right.  This is a pretty good reason to stay with
the 2D maps too.  OTOH, games like Ascendancy show that this same
limitation doesn't exist in software...
- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 21:25:04 -0400
From: maverick@castlegate.net (Steve Brengard)
Subject: Re: Sylea --> Capitol

A long time ago I downloaded a near complete list of all the planets. I
still have to hard copies (I printed them up) but I have lost the file.
Anyone know where this file(s) can be found??

- ----------
> From: Leonard Erickson <shadow@krypton.rain.com>
> To: traveller@MPGN.COM
> Subject: Re: Sylea --> Capitol
> Date: Saturday, April 12, 1997 5:48 AM
> 
> In mail you write:
> 
> > On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Leonard Erickson wrote:
> >
> >> I'm starting a database of Traveller "geography", sectors, subsectors,
> >> stars, planets...
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > I'm insterested in this database (as for any information that I can add
to
> > my Traveller universe).
> 
> Well, when I get it "done", I'll have to arrange for it to be on a web
> page or at an FTP site. When I get that far, I'll post the sector name
> data to the list, as folks will need that to be able to enter data in
> my format.
> 
> -- 
> Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
>  shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
> leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 19:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Realism vs. play value

> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 18:49:57 +0200 (METDST)
> From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
> 
> Craig Berry writes:
> >Give me a heat sink into a parallel dimension, and I'll give you five
> >different above-unity perpetual motion machines.  
> >
> >>The problem is to make sure your new laws dosen't have undesired 
> >>ramifications. Take the heat sink idea, for example. Postulate the
> >>availability of a heat sink inside a starship and no other changes in
> >>the laws of physics. Would that allow other, undesirable, effects?
> >>(Like drawing power out of thin air).
> > 
> >And the answer is, yes, it would.  
> 
> OK, please explain how. It's not that I doubt you, it's that I don't
> understand how that would work. I would have thought that having a hole
> where you can pour in energy, but not take it out again, would result
> in a net energy loss. I can't understand how you can turn that into an
> energy-producing gizmo.

We presume that there exists a hole in the wall of your reactor room which
leads to a parallel universe, into which you want to dump IR.  Given the
nature of waste heat, you do this by putting a big radiator in front of
it, and pumping your cooling fluid through it, allowing the heat to
radiate into the hole.

Now, being a one-way gate to a parallel universe, we derive that the hole
has an effective temperature of 0 K.  So, I replace my working fluid with
liquid helium.  I use the radiator as my condenser, let the cosmic 3 K
background warm it up in an evaporator nearby, and place a paddlewheel in
the condenser drain path.  Not perpetual, perhaps, but that paddlewheel
will continue turning as long as the cosmic microwave background persists,
and generate power in the process.

> How about an extremely efficient heat storage device? I know that that will
> also give you extremely efficient energy storage, which is why I didn't
> suggest it before, but can it be adjusted not to break other parts of
> the Traveller technology?

The problem is that you need to dump waste heat into something less hot
than the source, and any small reservoir will come up to equilibrium
temperature quickly; nothing has a high enough specific heat to 'eat'
fusion waste heat at GW levels for long, *and* fit inside a starship.

> (And, btw., how long can you "mask" a starship using it's capacitors as a
> heat storage device?)

You can't do that at all.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 19:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing

This realism vs. freewheeling debate is intriguing.  Time to throw some
more gasoline on the fire...

First off, I object to the assertion that players who find and exploit
unintended consequences of new tech/physics are "intentionally breaking
the game," or that this behavior is confined to rules-lawyering munchkins.
Any good (to me) RPG scenario can be construed as a series of puzzles or
challenges, some of broad scope ("how can I clear my family's name and
regain the Barony of Kachara?"), some of narrow scope ("how can I get past
this alert guard and into the conference room?"), all interwoven into a
narrative structure.

A good player, confronted with a challenge, brings to bear *all* of his or
her experience with the game world, and with the real world to the extent
it applies.  A good GM, setting up challenges, must both provide a few
well-prepared paths to success, and be prepared to wing it if the players
come up with something different.  The dilemma occurs when a player quite
rightly and innocently uses their game-world knowledge to solve a problem
in a way that ruins the game.

For example:  As the GM, you have contrived to put your players on a world
with a hostile low-tech populace, in a ship with broken m-drives, no
operational weapons, but a functional power plant.  On a mountaintop
nearby, visible from the landing site, is the wood-and-stone shell keep of
the local overlord, whose skirmish parties are getting bolder and bolder
at probing the downed ship's area.  Your model for the scenario is that
the players will be forced to parley with the natives, or sneak away from
the ship at night, or fight the locals with their meager small arms.

Then one of your players recalls your hand-waved explanation of IR stealth
from the previous session.  "Hey," she says, "didn't you say that our IR
cloaking system could beam waste heat from the reactor off in one
direction?"  You gulp and nod as a broad grin blooms on her face, then the
other players'.  "OK, we aim the waste-heat beam at that nice dry wooden
keep.  Engineer, crank the fusion-plus unit up to 'roast', please."

Result:  One wrecked scenario.  Your choices as GM?

(1) Say 'no'.  This destroys the players' faith in your world, and hence
    the joy of the game.  It also reduces the players' confidence that you
    will reward clever solutions, a very bad trend in any game.

(2) Say 'yes'.  Your careful preparations are out the window.  You either
    ad lib your way through an entirely unplanned adventure (GM hell), or
    tell everybody to go home half an hour after the session started, so
    you can prepare the new paths.  This doesn't lead to happy players.

All this from one casually hand-waved, seemingly harmless and irrelevant
piece of technology.  Almost *any* change to the background can cause
scenarios like this.  And notice that this is not munchkin behavior; I'd
call the player creativity above very good role-playing.

The objection was raised that literary SF is free to use hypertech and to
be inconsistent.  True, but in literature the author can *control* every
thought and action of every character in the book.  If there are
inconsistencies, and the author isn't aware of them, neither will the
characters be.  If he *is* aware of them, he can avoid them on purpose.
Similarly with hypertech; an author can control the characters, and
project into them full knowledge of their society and technology; you
can't do that with players.

  Consider how disorienting a book like "Neuromancer" or "Use of Weapons"
is on the first reading; part of the reader's pleasure is in gradually
figuring out what's going on.  That can't work in an RPG, unless you use
the tired old "20th Century people carried into the 57th by
stasis/relativity/whatever" plot, which is also a staple of lit. SF so
there'll be somebody as dumb as the reader to lecture at. 

Comments?

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 97 20:51:28 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Task System

On 04/11/97 at 08:51 PM,  Mused <marz@HotStar.net> said:

> > Well, another can of Coke passed through my sinuses on this one.. I may
> > print up a copy of this, and leave it where my players will see it...

> Why in god's name would you print a picture of yourself nasally expelling
> carbonated  beverages?

He said it was to scare them...and that should scare them if anything will!
;->

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 23:23:20 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: Yet more Pigeons

Glenn M. Goffin writes:

>>        Let's see... Pigeon guidance was being implemented in order to
>>guide what?  Blind people?  Little old ladies?  High explosive warheads
>>whose sole reason for existence was killing large numbers of people in an
>>unpleasant fashion and causing massive property damage?
>>
>>        And they drew the lines at blowing up pigeons?!

>Well, come on, it was war time.

   You rang?

>  You have to maintain your humanity somehow, even if 
>it's only by saving the lives of innocent pigeons.  Would 
>it have been better if the RAF had been simply emotionless automatons?

   Well there was another project developed by the Americans which
involved bats carrying incendiaries.  The plan was that the bats would
be released over Japan, fly into wooden structures on the ground looking
for a dark place to nest and instead would start fires.  During testing
of the concept in New Mexico, a number of the bats got loose and burned
down several building on an Army Air Corps base.  The project was
eventually dropped however when another project was given the go ahead
for production instead--the atomic bomb.

   Nuking saved the lives of countless bats, pigeons, and other small
furry and feathery creatures.  So the next time somebody starts talking
some anti-nuke jibberish, tell them that you favor thermonuclear weapons
because you are an animal rights activist.

Regards,

Harold (also known as War, one of the Four Horsemen of the Traveller
Apocalyse)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 23:25:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin W. Cain)
Subject: Droyne/Chirpers for TNE (long)

I was bored this weekend, so I wrote a draft paper consolidating my 
notes on Droyne and Chirper characters in TNE (converting _Alien_Module_
_5:_Droyne_ [AM5:Dr] to be compatible with TNE).  I'd appreciate some
feedback.

Franklin
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attributes: 

Roll the attributes as for a Chirper.  For a Droyne, select the caste 
and then add the listed modifiers.

                 ---------------- Droyne Castes ----------------------- 
Attr.  Chirper   Worker   Warrior   Drone   Technician   Sport   Leader 
 STR    1D6/2    +3D6/2    +1D6+2   +/-0       +/-0      +1D6     +/-0  
 AGL    1D6+2     +1D6     +1D6+1  +1D6/2      +1D6     +1D6/2   +1D6/2 
 CON    1D6+1     +1D6      +1D6   +1D6/2      +/-0     +1D6/2    +/-0  
 INT    1D6/2     +/-0     +1D6/2  +1D6/2     +3D6/2     +1D6    +3D6/2 
 EDU    1D6/2     +/-0     +1D6/2   +1D6      +3D6/2     +1D6     +1D6  
 CHR    1D6+1    +1D6/2    +1D6/2  +1D6/2     +1D6/2    +1D6/2   +3D6/2 
 PSI    1D6+1     +/-0      +/-0    +1D6       +/-0     +1D6/2   +1D6/2 

(For example):  Roll 1D6/2 +1D6 for a Sport's STR, roll 1D6+2 +1D6/2 for 
a Sport's AGL, and so on.   

As a result of career gains, an attribute can be raised, at most, two
points above the original value, but in no case above the racial maximum of
15 (F).  

Instead of SOC, Droyne and Chirper characters have the pseudo-attribute
Caste (CST).  This attribute specifies the caste to which the character
belongs, and thus can never be changed once chosen.  Chirpers have CST 0,
Workers have CST 1, Warriors have CST 2, Drones have CST 3, Technicians
have CST 4, Sports have CST 5, and Leaders have CST 6.  

Default Skills:

All Chirper and Droyne characters have Flying 0, Homing 0, Invisibility 0,
and Willpower 0.  Depending on the character's homeworld, the character may
also have the usual additional Default skills (Computer 0, Pilot (Grav) 0,
etc.).  

Background Skills:

A Chirper character can have whatever four appropriate Background skills
the player wants, subject, as usual, to GM approval.  Droyne character have
specific Background skills based on caste.

Worker Caste: 3x (Animal Handling, Artisan, or Engineer) 2, Service 2.  
Warrior Caste: Acrobat 2, (Archaic Weapons or Gun Combat) 2, Armed Martial
  Arts 2, Unarmed Martial Arts 2.  
Drone Caste: Instruction 2, Liaison 2, Philosophy/Theology 2, Service 2.  
Technician Caste: 4x (Artisan or Technician) 2.  
Sport Caste: Acrobat 2, Explore 2, Luck 2, Willpower 2.  
Leader Caste: Admin/Legal 2, Deduction/Analysis 2, Leadership 2, Liaison 2.  

Career Generation and Resolution:

Droyne and Chirpers begin career generation at age 12 (not 17), using the
standard four-year terms.  The number of skills they receive per term is
the usual for the term number.  

Chirper
(All Terms):
Skills: Acrobat, Animal HAndling, Charm, Explore, Interaction.  
Special: 9+ for Gun Combat, Melee, Perception, Psionics, Technician.  
Promotion: 9+, no DMs.  
Other: None.  

Worker
(All Terms):
Skills: Animal Handling, Artisan, Engineer, Service, Technician, +1 STR, 
  +1 AGL, +1 CON.  
Special: 9+ for Acrobat, Melee, Psionics, Vehicle.  
Promotion: 9+, no DMs.  
Other: None.  

Warrior
(All Terms):
Skills: Acrobat, Gun Combat, Melee, Tactics, Vehicle.  
Special: 7+ for Archaic Weapons, Artillery, Heavy Weapons, Medical,
  Perception, Personal Transport, Psionics, Spacehand, +1 STR, +1 AGL, 
  +1 CON.  
Promotion: 7+, no DMs.  
Other: None.  

Drone
(All Terms):
Skills: Charm, Interaction, Psionics, Social Science.  
Special: 8+ for Acrobat, Economics, Fine Arts, Medical, Perception, 
  +1 EDU, +1 CHR, +1 PSI.  
Promotion: 6+, no DMs.  
Other: None.  

Technician
(All Terms):
Skills: Artisan, Physical Science, Space Tech, Technician.  
Special: 7+ for Acrobat, Engineer, Perception, Psionics, Space Tech,
  Spacehand, +1 INT, +1 EDU.  
Promotion: 7+, no DMs.  
Other: None.  

Sport
(All Terms):
Skills: Acrobat, Charm, Determination, Explore, Interaction, Perception,
  Space Vessel.  
Special: 5+ for any skill (including Psionics), +1 INT, +1 CHR.  
Promotion: 8+, no DMs.  
Other: One ship DM per Special for a Scout.  

Leader
(All Terms):
Skills: Charm, Determination, Economics, Interaction, Perception, Social
  Science, Tactics, +1 INT, +1 CHR.  
Special: 7+ for any skill (including Psionics), +1 EDU.  
Promotion: 7+, no DMs.  
Other: Three ship DMs per term for a Scout.  

Money:

Chirpers get just the basic amount for the homeworld Tech Level for each
term of service (i.e., as though they had a SOC of 1).  

For Droyne, add together the character's rank number and the number of
terms served.  Multiply this number by the character's CST, and then
multiply this number by the basic amount for the homeworld Tech Level.  

This money is *not* available as cash.  Instead, the Droyne or Chirper can
have equipment whose total value doesn't exceed this monetary amount.  

Aging: 

Begin checking for losses of STR, AGL, and CON starting at age 20 (after
only two terms), and for losses of INT at age 52 (after 10 terms).  Sports
and Leaders receive a DM +3.  

Unusal Skills: 

Droyne and Chirpers almost never have the skills Bribery, Forgery,
Gambling, and Streetwise.  

New Skills:

Deduction/Analysis (INT) -- Perception: This skill allows a character to
piece together facts into a related whole.  This skill is a combination of
the skill Deduction from a back issue of _The_Traveller_Chronicle_ [TTC]
and the skill Intelligence Analysis presented a while ago on the TML by
someone else.  

Flying (CON) -- Acrobat, Personal Transport: This skill lets the Droyne or
Chirper make use of mechanical wings.  This skill is from AM5:Dr.  

Homing (PSI) -- Clairsentience/Teleperception: This psionic Talent lets the
Droyne or Chirper find its way back to its community.  This Talent is from
AM5:Dr.  

Invisibility (PSI) -- Telepathy/Telereception: This psionic Talent allows
the Droyne or Chirper to cloud the minds of men, evil chuckle not included.
This Talent is from AM5:Dr.  

Luck (INT) -- Determination: This skill is from a back issue of TTC (the
same one as Deduction, above), as well as from GDW's Dark Conspiracy.  This
skill acts as TNE's version of Jack-Of-All-Trades.  

Philosophy/Theology (EDU) -- Social Science: This skill is used by Droyne
for their coyn-casting ceremonies.  This skill is otherwise identical to
the version presented in T4.  It is used instead of the new skill
Prediction from AM5:Dr.  

Modified Skills:

Liaison: This skill is used by Droyne as normal.  It's also used to cross
caste barriers, instead of using the new skill Appeal from AM5:Dr.  
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 15:39:40 +1200 (NZST)
From: Idiot/Savant <idiot@sans.vuw.ac.nz>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

Anders Backman (anders.backman@aniware.se) wrote:
> Cool, I like the ref that extrapolates from Traveller future
> history instead of some contemporary furure historians. I see
> Solomani ahead in the military TLs, computer TLs but lacking in
> math, biology and especially in biology, law, etchics that the
> contemporary Solomani doesn't even consider TL related items.

 I'm not going to comment about maths (because I'm sure someone else
will), or law and ethics (which are _not_ a technological achievement or
capability - despite what Civ tells you :), but biology? Firstly, the
Solomani have a massive advantage over almost every other human race in
the Traveller universe when it comes to biology, simply because we're
actually _related_ to the other species sharing our planet. This means
that the principles you discover from working on animals (in anatomy, for
example) can actually be applied to humans, and vice versa. [This is
actually part of Traveller canon - the Solomani are biotech geniuses
compared to the Vilani]

 Secondly, it's simply untrue that we don't consider biology (or rather,
_biotechnology_) to be a "TL-related item". Just search the newspapers for
news of Daisy the cloned nazi sheep for evidence of this :)

 [Traveller, being based on the SF of the 60's and 70's largely ignores
biotechnology, because the field hadn't "taken off" back then. Now of
course we have a whole field of SF devoted to the miracles and nightmares
of biotech-dominated futures...]

> One Sf thingy: Why is it always (in SF) democraty that is the
> natural most efficient government? 

 Because most english-language SF is written by people who live in (gasp)
democracies, and have been told from day one that it is both the (morally)
best (least worst?) and most efficient form of government.

- --
Idiot/Savant			idiot@sans.vuw.ac.nz
Betray your friends; Crush your enemies; 
Control the world; Drink some coffee

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 21:39:44 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Task System

At 08:51 PM 4/11/97 +0000, you wrote:
>Douglas E. Berry wrote:
>> Feeback appreciated!
>> 
>> SNARF!
>> 
>> Well, another can of Coke passed through my sinuses on this one.. I may
>> print up a copy of this, and leave it where my players will see it...
>
>Why in god's name would you print a picture of yourself nasally expelling
carbonated 
>beverages?
>

Well, it's quite a sight... I was thinking of commissioning a palque with
this image on it for my "Scenario Destroyer" award.

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|      Professional Driver - Traveller Guru       |
|   Duchovny Manor Sniper and Beverly's Brother   |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/          |
|*************************************************|
|   Police in Uganda are searching for a man who  |
|   tranquilizes gorillas, then dresses them in   |
|   clown outfits.       -News of the Weird       |
+-------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 01:24:59 -0400
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: [TML] Backmans partial space combat system

>>>
On 04/12/97 at 10:37 AM,  Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com> said:

 >Anybody interested in looking at it mail me for a copy (it's about 15K
 >straight ascii) as I thought it was too big for mailing on the list
 >directly.

Anders, I'd like a copy as well...or have I already told you that? ;->


Eris
<<<

With all this attention on STS combat, it must be assumed that the
current set of rules are not working for anybody. As soon as James and I
finish the next version of Simple Ship Combat System we will post an
outline for the TML.

Bob Sanders

(Any ideas for a better name for the system?)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 97 22:48:31 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Heat sinks

On 04/12/97 at 07:46 PM,  Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net> said:

> I would have thought that having a hole where you can pour in
> energy, but not take it out again, would result in a net energy
> loss.  I can't understand how you can turn that into an
> energy-producing gizmo.

> We presume that there exists a hole in the wall of your reactor room
> which leads to a parallel universe, into which you want to dump IR. 
> Given the nature of waste heat, you do this by putting a big radiator in
> front of it, and pumping your cooling fluid through it, allowing the heat
> to radiate into the hole.

Hum, that's not quite how I pictured it. ;->

> Now, being a one-way gate to a parallel universe, we derive that the hole
> has an effective temperature of 0 K.  So, I replace my working fluid with
> liquid helium.  I use the radiator as my condenser, let the cosmic 3 K
> background warm it up in an evaporator nearby, and place a paddlewheel in
> the condenser drain path.  Not perpetual, perhaps, but that paddlewheel
> will continue turning as long as the cosmic microwave background
> persists, and generate power in the process.

Ah yes, but what if the only parallel universe(s) we can interact with have
the same 3k background as ours, having been formed by the "big-bang" at the
same time?  In this case, you can radiate your heat into the other universe
and perhaps draw energy out of it too, but in neither case would it be
being created or destroyed, nor would there be any danger of a "perpetual
motion machine."  All you'd be doing is shifting mass or energy from one
part of the mega-verse to another.  Shoot, you could create your own little
pocket universes for this purpose, sort of like Grandpop did.  Of course,
IIRC, manipulating pocket universes is up around TL 25 isn't it?  ;->

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 23:52:23 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Neutrinos

 
>   I think the "shielding detectors" concept won't fly, simply
> because the detectors don't interfere with the neutrinos.  That

So you're going to have a non-interactive detector that gives you
direction as well as energy for the neutrino?  I was under the
impression that neutrino detectors were based on inverse beta decay,
am I wrong here?

I guess I don't see how you interact with a neutrino without
interacting with it, I guess.

I was actually thinking more from a directional sense than
absorbtion within the detector.  You could get a direction from
something like a bubble chamber, but this implies an interaction,
no?

> said, however, you also will be swamped by stellar background
> and unable to figure out someones location in anything like
> reasonable parameters.  Also, the Book 8 sensor is an order
> of magnitude or two too small for the best theoretical model
> we can imagine.

Background is indeed a problem---and I'd be interested in a decent
reference for neutrino detectors (it's been a while since quantum
:-)

- -Merrick

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1185
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest       Sunday, April 13 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1186



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII
Search and Rescue Boat
Spectacular success/fail with KBv2.0
Re: Missiles+Fighters
Re: Neutrinos
Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing
Re: Boarding Actions
Re: Beyond the [solomani] rim...
Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)
Re: Fighters BB Killing Weapons
Re: Spectacular success/fail with KBv2.0
Re: Rimward of Solomani rim...
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Jump Capsules
Ammo Sheet (Slug Throwers)
[none]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 01:51:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: VolantZep@aol.com
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

In a message dated 97-04-11 21:27:36 EDT, you write:

<< Why are IR missiles less desirable than radar guided?
 Arguement: Would a Jet Turbine aircraft scraming through the atmosphere not
 have a hign skin tempature? If so why are IR sensors not used more for
 detection. 
 
 I imagine there are some logical reasons, probably having to due with that
 pesky atmosphere thing.
 
 Best,
 Joel Connors >>

I can tell you that based on our technology today why IR are inferior
missiles.  First of all they are completely Line of sight (LOS) only, and
this is a major problem for ground based missiles.  And although we are
improving the ability to filter out most decoys, it is still pretty easy to
fool an IR missile.  They are very susceptable to sun glint off of just about
anything, including clouds. Once the lock is broken it has to be manually
reaquired.  There aren't many air-to-air missiles that I can think of that
are effective in todays arsenal.

 OTOH I don't see these factors having the same effect in space because the
LOS is pretty much wide open unless you are in an asteroid belt or near a
planet (very near).  There aren't many things to get sun glint off of in deep
space either, not to  mention that background space being substantially
cooler that the target as has been rehashed.  Flares of some sort would still
be the primary means of fooling the missile (IMO) but at high TL they would
be pretty much foolproof I speculate.  There most probably will be some
mechanism to attempt to reaquire lock if contact is broken.  They are
developing missiles today that have ever increasing coasting abilities that
can relock after a substantial time.  With the distances involved in space
and flight time and fuel conservation in zero gravity coasting times could
big HUGE.  Evasion will still be an end-game/last-ditch maneuver to be
effective.  

Seems viable to me that IR missiles should be pretty damn effective in space
combat.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 23:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Search and Rescue Boat

Inspired by the upcoming premier of "Beltwatch" and Mark Clark's rescue
boat design, I'm please to present the Ce Acatl Corporation's "Quetzal"
class Search & Rescue Boat:

Ship/Class Name & Type: "Quetzal" class Rescue Boat             (QSDS 1.5)

Tons:   200 Std (Needle S)      Volume:   2800 m3       Cost:   203.3 MCr
Crew:   13                      Hi/Md P:  0             Low P:  0
Cargo:  4.3 Std                 Controls: Fib           TL:     12

Size:   8                               0 Jump (20 Std/Pc Fuel)
                                        6 Maneuver (T-plate, 12000 T/Thr)
Lsr trt  1 x (+0) 1/1-0-0-0             5 Power Plant (500 MW)
                                      5.4 Fuel (S 80 )
                                        0 Meson Screen
                                        0 Sandcasters
                                        0 Nuclear Damper
                               A10 P4 J10 Sensors (0 Stealth/Cloak)
                                       40 Armor        12 Structure
                                       51 Length (m)
    
Crew    13 (2 elec 2 engr 1 mnvr 1 gun 1 craft 1 cmd 5 medic )

Facilities: 10 sickbay (20 beds)

Min Hgr 1 x 10 Std craft

***

Mark's was half this size; I wanted enough room for a really big sickbay
with lots of doctors, and a small craft to dispatch to chase down
lifeboats, poke around wreckage, transport some of the wonded while the
main ship stays with the wreckage, or whatever.  I put the laser on for
two reasons:

1) You want at least *some* chance to defend yourself against the
   unexpected.
2) You can use it as a cutting tool to deal with wrecked ships (e.g.,
   creating entry holes in a mangled hull).

Anyway, hope somebody finds this useful!

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 23:11:41 -0800
From: rdhough@orca.bc.ca (Richard Hough)
Subject: Spectacular success/fail with KBv2.0

Thanks for the new spectacular results rules for KBv2.0, Kenneth. It looks
good, but I will try it out this weekend's session and report back.

One thing I suggest is that if a character rolls 3 or more sixes on a task,
but under the target number, the task is a regular failure but not a
spectacular failure. Without this rule highly skilled characters cannot
fail most tasks normally, only spectacularly. With this rule highly skilled
characters do better even in failure.

One other suggestion I have, Kenneth, is that you submit KBv2.0 to JTAS. If
this system was in JTAS #25 it would have been the most useful article in
the entire issue.

- --
Richard Hough
rdhough@orca.bc.ca

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 23:11:46 -0800
From: rdhough@orca.bc.ca (Richard Hough)
Subject: Re: Missiles+Fighters

>However in my Traveller campaign neutrino sensors are pretty large and
>requires a license to own as they would make tracking of SDB movements way
>too easy if Joe Public Xho-spy could own one.

Wouldn't a spy already have a neutrino detector and not need a license to
get one?

However, I do agree that neutrino detectors should be manditory for
military vessels. The ability to detect fusion plants at interplanetary
distances is so useful I can't understand why they aren't included in all
military sensor packages. The rules seem to ignore them completely except
for some mention about "analysing the fusion process of stars" or
something.

In my campaign neutrino sensors have poor resolution, about 45 degrees of
arc, but are very small and require low power (since I haven't allocated
space or power for them in ship designs!) They are used to scan for bogeys
in a system. If a suspicious neutrino source is detected the ship maneuvers
and uses other sensors to get a weapon lock. This way ships can quickly
decide whether to go to battle stations or continue with their missions.

>Me and Daniel had some ideas about large gravity wave detectors
>for detecting incoming outgoing ships. Any ship coming in from
>hyperspace or jumping would create a huge gravity wave
>detectable in an entire solar system.

This is a cool idea, but I don't understand why a jumping ship would make a
"huge gravity wave". Does it get more massive or what? Wouldn't this have
unpleasant side effects on the crew and passengers? Gravity wave detectors
would probably be useful for detecting contra-grav or thruster plates, but
I don't see why jump drive would have such an effect. Someone please
enlighten me if I am wrong.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 00:28:42 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Neutrinos

Hmmm,

I dug around and found a copy of Kitchin (most of my other texts are
at work).  I guess you (Steven) were refering to a scattering
detector?  For others out there, it involves detecting
neutrino-electron scattering events instead of neutrino capture
events (the chlorine 37 detectors that live in salt mines most
people know about).

These are still interactions, albeit small ones.  How directional is
this detector, BTW?

Actually, since at traveller TLs they have direct strong and weak
force control, couldn't this be used for detection (or shielding)?
I don't really have a mental picture of how this would work, but
somebody else might...

- -Merrick

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 97 01:52:29 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing

On 04/12/97 at 07:56 PM,  Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net> said:

> Then one of your players recalls your hand-waved explanation of IR
> stealth from the previous session.  "Hey," she says, "didn't you say that
> our IR cloaking system could beam waste heat from the reactor off in one
> direction?" 

You bet!  Exactly the sort of thing my players would come up with.

> You gulp and nod as a broad grin blooms on her face, then
> the other players'.  "OK, we aim the waste-heat beam at that nice dry
> wooden keep.  Engineer, crank the fusion-plus unit up to 'roast',
> please."

And that's how they'd use it too. ;->  Being the more civilized GM, I'd, of
course, only threaten the buggers in the keep into a negotiated settlement.
[Yeah sure! ;-p]

> Result:  One wrecked scenario.  Your choices as GM?

> (1) Say 'no'.  This destroys the players' faith in your world, and hence
>     the joy of the game.  It also reduces the players' confidence that you
>     will reward clever solutions, a very bad trend in any game.

Yuk! Ptooie!  You should at least let them try, and describe the failure
and the reason it failed..."Ok, Kellen (the Engineer) roll a difficult task
on Enginnering+EDU...[she rolls and you do to, but you don't tell her what
*you're* rolling for <g>]..You succeed?  Ok. Boz, you're standing outside
when Kellen cranks up the beam.  It lances away from the ship and you feel
a blast of heat like from a furnace on your face. The air crackles and blue
arcs of lightning pop up from the rocks along the length of the beam. 
Above the keep's wooden roof begins to smoke and in less than a minute
flames are viable. Then with a loud BANG, you are knocked on the seat of
your pants. Sitting up you see that the beam is gone and there is smoke
comming out out of your ship's hatch.  Kellen staggers out of the hatch
with black streaks on her face and smoke still coming from her hair. 'Curse
it!  The damn thing blew up!'  Up above at the keep you see dozens of men
beating at the flames on the roof.  Dang! They're *really* going to be mad
now!  It's clear that you should have RTFM, guys...this stealth beam isn't
rated to work in an atmosphere...burns it out."<g>  

> (2) Say 'yes'.  Your careful preparations are out the window.  

Yes! ;->  Turn those lemons into lemonaide!

> You either ad lib your way through an entirely unplanned adventure (GM hell), 

Oh come on!  Some of the best plots come out of having to ad lib. I'd
expect the warlord to be rather POed...if he survived. ;->  But then if he
didn't, there's the problem of *who* is going to protect the innocent
townspeople and the monks at the monestary in this valley from the *really*
bad guys in the next valley over?  And even if the players don't know it
yet, they *need* to make friends with those monks...who have a
library...and some "old relics" from the "first landing."  ;->

>     tell everybody to go home half an hour after the session started, so
>     you can prepare the new paths.  This doesn't lead to happy players.

Heck! If you did that to me, Craig, I'd have a fit! ;->

> All this from one casually hand-waved, seemingly harmless and irrelevant
> piece of technology.  Almost *any* change to the background can cause
> scenarios like this.  And notice that this is not munchkin behavior; I'd
> call the player creativity above very good role-playing.

Oh, sure. You're players weren't being munchkins, they were being smart,
being creative.  Just the sort of players I *like* too!   

But, I DO agree with you about simply handwaving explanations.  The GM has
to do the best he can to maintain an internally consistant universe for his
players. If I allowed this IR beamer to exist, and I wouldn't, then I'd
have to live with the consequences, and that means I'd have to think it
out.  I've always been blessed with players that *help* me with that..one
why or another. Hee! ;->

BTW, how'd you like my ad libs? ;->

Eris

- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 19:10:51 +1200
From: Rupert Boleyn <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Boarding Actions

Why this bother with the attitude jets? You've just done major damage to the
ship, so a bit more won't matter. Just shoot out the jets with a revlativly
low-powered laser, at boarding ranges this is a no miss proposition.

R. Boleyn

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 19:10:58 +1200
From: Rupert Boleyn <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Beyond the [solomani] rim...

At 10:50 11/04/97 -0700, you wrote:
>
>According to canon(iirc)...'here be dragons' or something like that...I
>don't think there IS an official sector rimward of the Solomani Rim. 
>
>Bruce Johnson
>University of Arizona
>College of Pharmacy
>Information Technology Group
>
>Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs
>
According to the map labled "Charted Space" in TNE the sector rimward of the
Solomani Rim sector is the Aldebaran sector as do the maps in the Rebellion
Sourcebook. I've never seen anything further rimward than that though, so I
guess you'd fall off the edge of the galaxy if you went any further.

R. Boleyn
 

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 17:14:41 
From: dadams@tig.com.au
Subject: Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)

** Reply to note from Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net> Sat, 12 Apr 1997 17:16:55 -0700 
>    
> At 06:14 PM 4/11/97 -0400, Christopher M. Russell wrote: 
> >>And supposedly, the computers on the Shuttle are still using ferrite core 
> >>memory.  Supposedly each of the computers is less powerful than a 386. 
> >>Anyone know for certain? 
> > 
> >Even scarier, they were made by Apple! 
>    
> I think you were probably joking, but I wasn't.  I recall seeing an 
> analysis of the code written for these computers (in assembler, by IBM). 
> The cost came out to just a little bit more than $1M per line of code in 
> the finished product. 
>    
The reasoning about these computers was sound, to ensure they where imune to radiation and 
magnetic forces. In practice, i dont know. NASA seems to try to push yesterday's technolagy 
for tomorrow. 


Darryl Adams		dadams@tig.com.au 
 

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 19:10:46 +1200
From: Rupert Boleyn <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Fighters BB Killing Weapons

At 00:20 11/04/97 PST, you wrote:

>We are producing and *storing* multiple *thousands* of anti-protons
>currently. And plans are underway for building dedicated antimatter
>production facilities. Sure, it's hideously expensive, But it is the
>single *best* power storage medium known. The military is *very*
>interested. 
>
>For example, if we come up with good enough storage designs, that 1000
>g missile can be built using an antimatter rocket engine. And it'll be
>*nasty*. 

Maybe so, but God help the poor sods in an A-M equipped ship when the power
goes down...
>-- 
>Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
> shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
>leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort
>
R. Boleyn

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 01:08:16 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Spectacular success/fail with KBv2.0

> Thanks for the new spectacular results rules for KBv2.0, Kenneth. It looks
> good, but I will try it out this weekend's session and report back.

Great.  Please let me know how it goes and what your players think.

> One thing I suggest is that if a character rolls 3 or more sixes on a task,
> but under the target number, the task is a regular failure but not a
> spectacular failure. Without this rule highly skilled characters cannot
> fail most tasks normally, only spectacularly. With this rule highly skilled
> characters do better even in failure.

I disagree.  Highly skilled characters should have a small chance of 
failure--after all, they are highy skilled and know what the heck 
they are doing.

These characters can still roll over their target numbers for a 
regular failure.  And, if you change the 3 sixes to regular failure, 
what will you do for SF?

With the probability of SF being--

 Probability of SF
 
 Difficulty                    SF%
 --------------------------------
 Easy                          0.00
 Average                    0.46
 Difficult                      1.54
 Formidable                 3.22
 Staggering                 5.36
 Impossible                  7.81



I think that the % chance is not too high (or low) even if rolled by 
a character with high skill.

Besides, a high level character's % chance of SS will go up based on 
his skill level.  In this way, SS/SF is affected by a character's 
skill.

> One other suggestion I have, Kenneth, is that you submit KBv2.0 to JTAS. If
> this system was in JTAS #25 it would have been the most useful article in
> the entire issue.

Yes, I've been thinking about that.  I've also got some Traveller 
short stories that I've been thinking about submitting also.

Just for your information, I have submitted KBv2.0 to Marc Miller for 
the revised edition of T4.

I submitted it to him before it hit the list several months back, but 
I didn't hear back from him.

I wanted some direction from him to ensure that KBv2.0 went in the 
direction that Marc would want in a task system.

I had heard from him on some other issues, and he had told me before 
that he wanted to get rid of the half die in the Book 1 system.  
Since I agreed completely with that, that's where I brainstormed to 
get KBv2.0 to.

But, when I didn't hear back from him when I submitted the idea for 
KBv2.0, I decided to head it out on my own.  Direction from Marc 
Miller or no, I was determined to fix the problems with the T4 task 
system.  I knew if I worked on it long enough, it could be done.

What I posted the other night is the completed version.  I've since 
decided to give Marc another try.  The first post I sent him was an 
outline for an idea--the framework I hung KBv2.0 on.  This recent 
second post is the completed task system.

I hope to hear from him, but I'm not holding my breath.  With or 
without Marc, I've got a good task system for my game, and I've 
litterally gotten e-mails in the high double digits supporting the 
work I've done on the system.

This tells me, even though there are some vocal detractors, that 
several people like KBv2.0 and are using it.  

It is nice to get a pat on the back when you've done something good.  
I do hope that KBv2.0 will become the new T4 task system, but even if 
it doesn't, its growing into the unofficial system of choice for 
many.

The fact that I like it is enough for me.  I'm ecstatic that so many 
others  like it as much as I do.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 19:43:21 +1200
From: Rupert Boleyn <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Rimward of Solomani rim...

At 16:59 11/04/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Rimward of the Solomani Rim is Aldebaran. Rimward of THAT is Malorn
>
>K.C. Komosky
>umkomosk@cc.umanitoba.ca
>
>
Where did you get Malorn from? I've never seen anything rimward of Aldebaran.
R. Boleyn
 <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
TNE to the core

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 19:43:19 +1200
From: Rupert Boleyn <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

At 11:17 11/04/97 -0700, you wrote:
>At 01:53 AM 4/12/97 +1200, Rupert Boleyn wrote:
>>I've always used the premise that cultures
>>with the relatively chaep intersteller flight of Traveller would have plenty
>>of space and resources, and thus wouldn't have the worship of minaturization
>>that the modern western world has.
>
>Minaturization isn't done because of lack of physical space, and is only
>moderately related to straight physical resources.  It has more to do with
>human-scale packaging and power consumption.  Even in a society with great
>power generation, you'll want greatly minaturized components for carryable
>and wearable computers, for example, and then too you don't want to have to
>strap on a fusion+ reactor just to power your hand computer.  
>
>
>--
>
>Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net
>
>"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
>may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
>by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung
>

It's not minaturization to that level that I was refering, it's things like
tiny cellphones that have keypads too small for anyone with bigger than
average finger to use easily (me). I don't know about anywhere use, but down
here in New Zealand they're marketed as being better than older models
because they're smaller.

The other thing is that in a starfaring culture (assuming cheap travel)
there'd be far less economic pressure to minaturize, and the break even
point between materials costs and minaturization costs would be closer to
the 'large' end of the scale.

R. Boleyn
R. Boleyn
 <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
TNE to the core

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 00:07:46 -0700
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)
Subject: Jump Capsules

  Striker I jump capsules (aka drop pods, etc, but no, they don't
have hyperdrives) were costed at KCr 2/10/50 for basic, assault,
and high-survivability (assault).  Obviously a basic option would
be a cargo variant of each.  The basic is not suitable for combat
missions.  Costs of all of these seem to too low by a factor of
five or ten.
        Have fun,
                Steven Hudson

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 01:38:18 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Ammo Sheet (Slug Throwers)

I've got some more sheets that some of you might be interested in.  

This one is an ammo sheet for slug throwers that you can use to keep 
track of ammo usage.  It's sometimes hard to remember just how many 
rounds you fired from your gauss rifle last game session.  You know 
you still had some left in the clip, but for exactly how many, you 
haven't got a clue.  Since you can't remember, it must be a full 
clip.

It's magical how players all of a sudden have completely full 
weapons.  Those scratch sheets that they use to keep track of how 
many rounds they have always seem to get thrown away at the end of 
the night.

I designed this sheet just for this purpose.  It's got 9 clips listed 
on the front, and I always print on the back too--allowing a 
character one sheet for 18 clips.

Each magazine is grouped into threes, so you can keep ammo for the 
same weapon grouped together.

And, each magazine is detailed, so that you can record all the 
pertinent details about the ammunition.

I designed this sheet when I was still using the TNE rules, so this 
may be a little more detail than you want for your T4 game.  But, 
I've found that it works just fine in mine now that I've converted to 
the T4 rules.  Besides, you can always leave spaces blank if you 
don't want that much detail about the clip.

Each magazine includes blanks for:

Type of weapon and TL

Type of round (HEAP, DS, HE, Ball, DSAP, etc)

Wt per round in grams (in case encumbrance is ever an issue in 
combat.  This was easy to list from the TNE info.  If you are using 
T4 like I am, you can leave it blank)

Wt of empty magazine (guass rifles have a battery in their mags, so 
they are heavy.  Auto-pistol mags are light.)

Wt of full magazine (in most games, you want to know this--its part 
of your character's combat load.)

Mag Capacity (list how many rounds are in a full mag)

Current Capacity (large space for running total--keep track of how 
many rounds are currently in the gun).

This sheet is spaced to allow hole punches on the side--all of my 
players keep their characters in a hard bound three ring binder.  
I've found that using such a sheet makes recording keeping easier, it 
looks nice and is Travelleresque in design, and it facilitates 
keeping track of ammo usage when characters switch ammo types and 
magazines in the middle of a fight.  All a player has to do in this 
case is starting taking the ammo from another clip when he fires.  

You can always easily see how many rounds are in a specific clip at a 
glance because of the running totals, and it's easy to reference 
weight and encumbrance when three out of four characters are down and 
the remaining has to grab what he can before he leaves that area to 
save his skin.

Out of respect for those who get the TML in digest format, I'm not 
posting this sheet to the list as an attachment.

If you want it, then send me an e-mail asking me for it.  It's in 
Word v2.0, and I'll get it right out to you.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 01:16:59 -0700
From: Mike Linsenmayer <mike-l@sure.net>
Subject: [none]

TRAVELLER ITEMS FOR UP FOR BID!

After these items are gone I will endver to find and collect more for =
auction as soon as possible!

Mike

http://www.sure.net/~mike-l

$6.00 GOING GOING (bd18-4,7):GDW: FIRST THREE BLACK BOOKS (1-3) Print 1 =
(1977), VERY GOOD=20
$18.00 (bd4-4,11):FASA: ADVENTURE CLASS SHIPS, WORN to FAIR, volumes one =
and two. Booklets (4 total), 18 Ship plans=20
$5.00 GOING GOING (bd14-4,7):FASA: THE FCI CONSUMER GUIDE, FAIR=20
$10.00 GOING (bd4-4,10):FASA: THE LEGEND OF THE SKY RAIDERS, FAIR
$12.00 (bd4-4,11):FASA: THE TRAIL OF THE SKY RAIDERS, WORN
$16.00 (bd4-4,11):FASA: FATE OF THE SKY RAIDERS, FAIR to GOOD=20
OPEN:GDW: Intro Adventure INTRODUCTORY ADVENTURE, FAIR=20
$3.00 GOING (bd15-4,9):GDW: Book 4 MERCENARY, FAIR
$6.00 GOING GOING (bd18-4,8):GDW: Book 4 MERCENARY, MINT
$10.00 GOING GOING (bd18-4,7):GDW: Book 5 HIGH GUARD, MINT, Slight =
crease in lower right corner
$3.00 GOING (bd15-4,9):GDW: Book 5 HIGH GUARD, VERY GOOD
$3.00 GOING GOING (bd18-4,7):GDW: Book 6 SCOUTS, WORN
$13.50 (bd13-4,11):GDW: Book 7 MERCHANT PRINCE, VERY GOOD=20
$16.00 GOING (bd15-4,10):GDW: Book 8 ROBOTS, MINT, Slight crease in =
lower right corner
$6.50 GOING GOING (bd15-4,8):GDW: STRIKER BOOKS 1 through 3, VERY GOOD
$2.00 GOING (bd11-4,10):GDW: Supplement 2 ANIMAL ENCOUNTERS, GOOD to =
VERY GOOD
$2.00 GOING (bd11-4,10):GDW: Supplement 4 CITIZENS OF THE IMPERIUM, FAIR
$10.00 GOING GOING (bd12-4,7):GDW: Supplement 5 AZHANTI HIGH LIGHTNING, =
GOOD, No box or popout pieces but maps are near mint and books are good =
to very good.
$4.00 GOING GOING (bd15-4,7):GDW: Supplement 6 76 PATRONS, VERY GOOD
$4.00 GOING GOING (bd15-4,7):GDW: Supplement 7 TRADERS AND GUNBOATS, GOO =
D
$10.00 GOING GOING (bd15-4,8):GDW: Supplement 8 LIBRARY DATA, VERY GOOD=20
$4.00 GOING GOING (bd18-4,7):GDW: Supplement 9 FIGHTING SHIPS, GOOD
$5.00 SOLD (bd4-4,4):GDW: Supplement 12 FORMS AND CHARTS, GOOD to VERY =
GOOD
$4.00 GOING GOING (bd15-4,7):GDW: Adventure 1 THE KINUNIR, VERY GOOD to =
MINT
$10.00 GOING (bd11-4,10):GDW: Adventure 2 RESEARCH STATION GAMMA, GOOD
$25.00 GOING GOING (bd11-4,8):GDW: Adventure 3 TWILIGHT'S PEAK, GOOD to =
FAIR
$3.00 GOING GOING (bd15-4,7):GDW: Adventure 4 LEVIATHAN, FAIR to WORN
$6.00 GOING (bd14-4,10):GDW: Adventure 6 EXPEDITION TO ZHODANE, GOOD
$4.00 GOING (bd15-4,10):GDW: Adventure 7 BROAD SWORD, GOOD
$6.00 GOING (bd14-4,10):GDW: Adventure 8 PRISON PLANET, GOOD to VERY =
GOOD
$5.00 GOING (bd15-4,10):GDW: Adventure 9 NOMADS OF THE WORLD OCEAN, VERY =
GOOD
$4.00 GOING (bd15-4,10):GDW: Adventure 10 SAFARI SHIP, GOOD to VERY GOOD
$6.00 GOING (bd11-4,10):GDW: Adventure 11 MURDER ON ARCTURUS STATION, =
VERY GOOD
$15.00 (bd8-4,11):GDW: Adventure 12 SECRET OF THE ANCIENTS, GOOD
$5.50 GOING GOING (bd15-4,7):GDW: Adventure 13 SIGNAL GK, VERY GOOD to =
MINT
$5.00 SOLD (bd11-4,6):GDW: Double Adventure 1 SHADOWS & ANNIC NOVA, MINT
$3.00 GOING GOING (bd15-4,7):GDW: Double Adventure 2 MISSION ON MITHRIL =
& ACROSS THE BRIGHT FACE, VERY GOOD
$3.00 GOING GOING (bd14-4,7):GDW: Double Adventure 3 DEATH STATION & =
ARGON GAMBIT, VERY GOOD
$10.00 GOING GOING (bd7-4,5):GDW: Double Adventure 4 MAROONED & MAROONED =
ALONE, VERY GOOD
$10.00 SOLD (bd7-4,5): Double Adventure 5 CHAMAX PLAGUE & HORDE, VERY =
GOOD
$10.00 SOLD (bd7-4,5): Double Adventure 6 NIGHT OF CONQUEST & DIVINE =
INTERVENTION, GOOD
$10.00 GOING GOING (bd12-4,7):GDW: Alien Module 1 ASLAN, GOOD
$20.00 GOING GOING (bd12-4,7):GDW: Alien Module 2 K'KREE, GOOD
$10.00 GOING (bd21-4,9):GDW: Alien Module 3 VARGR, GOOD to VERY GOOD
$16.00 (bd21-4,11):GDW: Alien Module 4 ZHODANI, VERY GOOD
$25.00 (bd14-4,10):GDW: Alien Module 5 DROYNE, VERY GOOD
$20.00 GOING GOING (bd12-4,7):GDW: Alien Module 6 SOLOMANI, GOOD to VERY =
GOOD
$13.00 GOING (bd21-4,9):GDW: Alien Module 8 DARRIANS, VERY GOOD
$20.00 GOING (bd4-4,10):DIGEST GROUP PUBLICATIONS: 101 ROBOTS, VERY GOOD
$8.00 (bd8-4,11):GDW: ALIEN REALMS ADVENTURE, VERY GOOD to MINT
$6.00 GOING GOING (bd18-4,7):GDW: STRIKER BOOKS 1 through 3, VERY GOOD, =
No box, loose.=20
$4.00 GOING GOING (bd18-4,7):GDW: THE BELTERS HANDBOOK, WORN, No box, =
loose
$8.00 GOING GOING (bd1-4,8):GDW: THE TRAVELLER ADVENTURE BOOK, GOOD
$4.00 GOING GOING (bd13-4,7):GDW: ORIGINAL REFEREE'S GAMING KIT, MINT
$21.00 GOING GOING (bd12-4,8):GDW: THE SPINWARD MARCHES CAMPAIGN, GOOD =
to FAIR
$10.00 SOLD (bd11-4,6):GDW: TRAVELLER NEW ERA BOX SET, VERY GOOD (Books =
inside box are MINT)
$7.00 SOLD (bd11-4,4):GDW: ATLAS OF THE IMPERIUM, VERY WORN
$3.00 GOING GOING (bd15-4,7):GDW: BEST OF THE JOURNAL of the Travellers' =
aid society, # 1, 1-4, VERY GOOD=20
$5.00 GOING (bd14-4,10):GDW: JOURNAL of the Travellers' aid society, # =
13, Hivers, VERY GOOD=20
$3.00 GOING GOING bd15-4,7):GDW: JOURNAL of the Travellers' aid society, =
# 15, Azun, FAIR Cover Torn Off otherwise GOOD
$3.00 GOING GOING (bd15-4,7):GDW: JOURNAL of the Travellers' aid =
society, # 17, Atmospheres, VERY GOOD=20
$3.00 GOING GOING (bd15-4,7):GDW: JOURNAL of the Travellers' aid =
society, # 20, Prologue, VERY GOOD=20
$1.00 GOING GOING (bd1-4,8):GDW: CHALLENGE MAGAZINE , # 27, VERY GOOD
$1.00 GOING GOING (bd1-4,8):GDW: CHALLENGE MAGAZINE , # 28, VERY GOOD
$1.00 GOING GOING (bd1-4,8):GDW: CHALLENGE MAGAZINE , # 29, VERY GOOD to =
MINT
$3.00 GOING GOING (bd18-4,7):GDW: CHALLENGE MAGAZINE , # 30, MINT
$2.00 GOING GOING (bd14-4,7):GDW: CHALLENGE MAGAZINE , # 31, MINT
$1.00 GOING GOING (bd1-4,8):GDW: CHALLENGE MAGAZINE , # 32, GOOD
$2.00 GOING GOING (bd14-4,7):GDW: CHALLENGE MAGAZINE , # 36, VERY GOOD
$1.00 GOING GOING (bd1-4,8):GDW: CHALLENGE MAGAZINE , # 40, VERY GOOD
$2.00 GOING GOING (bd14-4,7):GDW: CHALLENGE MAGAZINE , # 41, VERY GOOD
$1.00 GOING GOING (bd1-4,8):GDW: CHALLENGE MAGAZINE , # 44, GOOD to FAIR
$6.00 (bd2-4,11):FASA: FAR TRAVELLER MAGAZINE, # 1, GOOD to FAIR
$10.00 SOLD (bd6-4,4): FAR TRAVELLER MAGAZINE, # 2, MINT
$26.00 (bd4-4,11):DIGEST GROUP PUBLICATIONS: THE TRAVELLER DIGEST, # 7, =
VERY GOOD
$26.00 (bd4-4,11):DIGEST GROUP PUBLICATIONS: THE TRAVELLER DIGEST, # 8, =
VERY GOOD=20
$20.00 SOLD (bd7-4,5):DIGEST GROUP PUBLICATIONS: THE TRAVELLER DIGEST, # =
10, VERY GOOD=20
$25.00 GOING (bd1-4,10):DIGEST GROUP PUBLICATIONS: THE TRAVELLER DIGEST, =
# 11, VERY GOOD=20
$4.00 GOING GOING (bd18-4,7):DIGEST GROUP PUBLICATIONS: THE TRAVELLER =
DIGEST, # 21, VERY GOOD Almost MINT
OPEN:GDW: BOX GAME: TARSUS, FAIR, Missing box and some character cards=20
$3.00 (bd8-4,11):GDW: INVASION EARTH BOX GAME, WORN=20
$8.00 GOING GOING (bd18-4,7):GDW: SURVIVAL MARGIN, MINT, Slight crease =
in spine
$9.00 (bd4-4,11):JUDGES GUILD: 101 STARPORTS, VERY WORN
$2.00 GOING (bd11-4,10):JUDGES GUILD: TANCRED, GOOD, Some slight water =
stains on cover, inside very good.
$5.00 GOING GOING (bd14-4,7):JUDGES GUILD: DARKLING SHIP, GOOD, Some =
water spots on cover.

TRAVELLER 2300

OPEN:GDW: MISSION ARCTURUS, VERY GOOD to MINT
OPEN:GDW: NYOTEKUNDU, VERY GOOD
OPEN:GDW: BAYERN, VERY GOOD
OPEN:GDW: AURORE, GOOD
OPEN:GDW: KAFER SOURCE BOOK, VERY GOOD
OPEN:GDW: EQUIPMENT GUIDE, VERY GOOD to MINT
$5.00 GOING (bd8-4,9):GDW: EARTH/CYBERTECH SOURCE BOOK, MINT

TSR GAME STUFF

$22.00: SOLD (bd3-4,5)TSR: DUNGEONS & DRAGONS MANUAL (blue cover) Print =
3 (1978),VERY GOOD to GOOD
OPEN:TSR: GAMMA WORLD MANUAL Print 3 (1980), VERY GOOD
OPEN:TSR: GAMMA WORLD ADVENTURE 1, Legion of Gold Print 1(1981), GOOD to =
FAIR
OPEN:TSR: DEITIES AND DEMIGODS Print 3 (1980), VERY GOOD, Should be MINT =
but when I first got it the was the rage to color in the pictures, so 7 =
are colored in.
OPEN:TSR: DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE Print ? (from 1979), GOOD, Some writing.
OPEN:TSR: STAR FRONTIERS CAMPAIGN BOOK, GOOD Books 1 and 2
OPEN:TSR: STAR FRONTIERS ALPHA DAWN GAME RULES BOOK, GOOD Books 1 and 2
$2.00 GOING GOING (bd14-4,7):TSR: STAR FRONTIERS MISSION TO ALCAZZAR, =
FAIR
OPEN:TSR: STAR FRONTIERS 2010 ODYSSEY ADVENTURE, GOOD

OTHER GAME STUFF

OPEN:FASA: STAR TREK THE ROLE PLAYING GAME, GOOD, Would be very good or =
MINT if I had the original box and dice just the three manuals which are =
MINT.
OPEN:AVALON HILL: SQUAD LEADER, WORN to FAIR
OPEN:JUDGES GUILD: RAVENS CRAG, WORN, Very detailed castle maps
OPEN:FANTASY GAMES UNLIMITED: (Space Opera) SELDONS STARCRAFT 2, FAIR
$3.00 SOLD (bd1-4,4):WALLABY PRESS: STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE SHIP =
BLUEPRINTS, VERY GOOD to MINT
$1.00 SOLD (bd11-4,6):GRAB BAG OF LOOSE STUFF

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1186
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest       Sunday, April 13 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1187



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

neutrino detectors
Re: Norris (was Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 )
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII
Thanks - Beyond the [solomani] rim...
Re: IR Masking
Re: Neutrinos
Re: Conservation (was Re: IR masking)
Re: IR Masking
Re: Missiles+Fighters
Re: TL 8 Laser Carbine
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
PBEM: Players wanted
The Imperial Yacht (5000T QSDS Design)
Re: Sylea --> Capitol
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Spreadsheets
Re: IR Missiles
Traveller Chat

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 01:33:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com>
Subject: neutrino detectors

I don't see neutrino detectors as needing to act as neutrino shielding.

How about:

Neutrino detectors (though handwaving nuclear damper-related) principles
intersept approximately .1% of the neutrinos which intersect the sensor.
The detector registers both the number of the neutrinos and their
direction (through some cloud chamber-like mechanism).  So, the detectors
can sense high neutrino concentrations and give their direction (and
distance through triangulation). 

Other options are possible, but this one works for me.

- -Comments?


- -John Snead jsnead@netcom.com

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 12:42:45 -0800
From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
Subject: Re: Norris (was Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 )

> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 01:17:19 +0100
> From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
> Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

[snip of tech discussion]

> Was Norris gay for
> political/sexual/or bloodlines reasons ?
> 
> /Anders Backman

I would assume Norris was gay because he liked men "that way" and did
not like women "that way" :)

If what you meant was "Why did someone at GDW make Norris gay ?" I have
no idea.  It could be that they wanted to point out that it was a viable
orientation that would still be with us in the far future, or it could
have just been that someones female PC tried to seduce Norris in an
early playtest session & they needed a good reason for it to fail.  If
anyone knows the answer please tell us.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 18:53:54 
From: dadams@tig.com.au
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

** Reply to note from Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com> Fri, 11 Apr 1997 22:36:49 -0500 (CDT) 
>    
> Quoth Darryl Adams, dadams@tig.com.au (Why do so many Australians spell badly?): 
 
 
We dont. It is the rest of the world that spells badly. :-) 
 

Darryl Adams		dadams@tig.com.au 
 

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 18:53:45 
From: dadams@tig.com.au
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

** Reply to note from Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com> Sat, 12 Apr 1997 01:02:55 -0500 (CDT) 
>    
> Quoth dadams@tig.com.au: 
> > > It's in *everyone*'s best interests to make Trav reality match the  
> > > physical universe as closely as possible, minimizing hand-waved  
> > > exceptions. 
> >   
> > No No No No No. I repeat NO.  
>    
> This is an argument?  He exhibits reason and discretion (note "minimizing," 
> _not_ "eliminating" or "forbidding" in the quote above), and your rejoinder 
> leads off with that scintillating bit of analysis?  Enough.  Let's get to 
> the better-argued stuff. 
 
It was a statement that was qualified in a way that i had to respond. It was not intended as 
an attack or a flame, but a valid response, meybe a cry to exclude me from the broard 
"everyone". 
 
 
> > Take Babylon 5. While it is the most realistic show on tv, it has things 
> > which are impossable. 
>    
> Keep in mind that television shows and movies, under complete artistic 
> control by the writers, directors, producers, etc., can and do get away 
> with more loopholes and mistakes than an RPG can or should.  Or are you 
> advocating dictatory plot control by the GM to keep the characters from 
> wandering into embarassing areas of the universe? 
>    
 
Let clarify things a bit. I am not arguing to trash the laws of physics. I am concerned 
however that in the march of realism that people are exhibiting here. I have no problems with 
rules vehical design or starship design or technolagy development, as they serve a purpose as 
a common ground , a reference point for the RPG universe. These rules serve the basis of the 
games "bible, not unliek what is seen in Star Trek and Bab5. 
 
 
But when people say that "fighters are useless, because they can not work in the real world", 
are missing the point. (this is just an example mind you). Traveller ALWAYS (sice CT Book 4 
high guard) had fighters, they have allways been a valid paltform for space navys. This shows 
that while they may have a better grasp of physics thanme, they ignore the fact that a lot of 
the traveller technolagy is based on items that dont excist, cant excist or shouldnt excist. 
 
The reason they are there : bacause they would be fun to have. 
 
 
I have no problems of people sitting down, and say "Hey this is cool, lets justify it", than 
to say "We cant use this cool idea, the rules bar us". I came accross this problem with VDS 
when i found there was no reaction drives for space propulsion (I wanted to do a GUNDAM for 
the Terran Federation). I can live with this as Greg and Mark has said that fighters only 
become viable at TL12 Imperial space. Still, i felt disapointed. 
 
>    
> Granted.  It violates our current understanding of physics, but doesn't 
> pose any really nasty problems -- unless you start messing with ships 
> capable of speeds near c (rare in B5, a couple of possibly throw-away 
> screen displays aside), in which case you get time travel.  (And, heck, 
> JMS has already played with that one.... :-) 
 
>    
> > The reason for this is for the telling of the story. The story is king in 
> > RPG, the science is a handle, a plot device that allows the story to flow.   
>    
> The story is king in RPG's, I'll accept.  But there's a reason this is 
> _science_ fiction that we play, and not Dark Dragonlance Sun in the 
> Demonweb Pits.  Fantasy is fine and has its place... but many are 
> disagreeing (vehemently, like me!) that that place is in Traveller. 
 
Who said I wanted fantasy. If I did I will play Ars Magica. What I want is an coherant system 
that allows me to role play a science fiction setting. Traveller does that for me. VDS & QSDS  
allow me to introduce technolagy which i can be sure fits the background (even if the systems 
are broken in some places).  
 
 
>    
> > Why cant I have a wooden ship? 
>    
> You can.  But please explain why it's economical with all the attention 
> you'd need to sealant, connectors, armoring, and so on;  and why, if you 
> don't need to worry about that stuff, why everyone doesn't drive dugout 
> ships around the starlanes.  Or play Space:1889, which takes it all in 
> stride....  :-) 
>    
 
 
What if it unfeasable to construct a metal ship due to lack of resources or culteral reasons? 
What if they find a tree sap that is lighter, sturdier and more utalitarian than any metal. 
What if they find a way to grow crystals cheaply (like Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age). This 
too is science fiction, and should not be disregarded because it does not conform with western 
consumer technological patterns. 
 
> > Why cant I have a fighter that takes out a capital ship? Babylon 5 and 
> > Star Wars does. 
>    
> [Agreement in number between subject and verb... down, English major, down!] 
>    
 
That is why god inventented spell chechers and the devil took them out of my mail program :-) 
 
> Babylon-5 _doesn't_, which is one reason I like it.  I defy you to point out 
> a single case of a fighter "taking out" a capital ship on the show.  JMS has 
> specifically staged on multiple occasions that the fighters are there for 
> purposes of harassment and to tie up incidental weaponry so that the big 
> stuff can be brought to bear by the larger vessels.  Fighters help, but 
> they don't win the day. 
>    
> As for Star Wars... it's science fantasy.  Play it if you like, enjoy it 
> even: who are we to stop you?  But that's why Star Wars and Traveller tend 
> to cater to different markets.  Science fantasy vs. science fiction. 
>   
> > If realism disallows something that I want in my story, F**K realism! 
> > If someone says that it cant work , invent some bullsh*tium to justify it, 
> > like jump drives! 
>    
> You can have as much rope as you want to hang yourself with.  Just don't 
> scream bloody murder (as you're doing), when more sensible souls point out 
> how your ill-thought-out cow-pucky could easily spoil the very structure 
> of the universe which you claim to love. 
 
 
Huh? Traveller is bigger than you and me (and even Marc Miller, when he walked away from GDW). 
It is everyones. The whole point of my whole post is that Traveller is not a gearheads 
microcosm of technolagy, nor a space opera clash. Its both and more. We shoudl not limit it in 
any way, we should encourage it. Your vision of Traveller is correct. So is mine. So is Guy's, 
Dave Golden's, Joe Heck's and Dave Nielson's. 
 
 
 
>    
> > Rember the first law of gaming : keep the punters enertained.  
>    
> In your opinion.  My first law would be "Maintain atmosphere and 
> suspension of disbelief."  Too much handwaving, or a dictatorial 
> referee who forbids creative extensions to it, hurts both. 
 
 
I have seen games (not of traveller , thank god) where the GM hands out scrips of wha he 
expects his characters to do for that session. I have also seen a wild improvisation fall on 
its face or be startling successful. Remeber something Greg Porter wrote in CORPS (2nd Ed) 
, that there are 4 methods of doing something, the 3 the GM thinks are possable and the 4th is 
what the players actually do.  
 
If someone in my game comes up with a sudgestion which i feels is valid (even though i knwo 
nothing about it) I would generally allow it unless it is dramaticly appropiate to dissallow 
it (since on of the best sci fi player I know is a rule-lawyer/electrocics engineer, it is 
usually the safest way) or he stuffs up the skill roll anyway (which is alarmly regualr with 
this guy). 
 
One point, the characters know more about the Traveller Universe than you and I wil ever 
know. Its there world, we just get to see into it once and a while 
 
 
 
>    
> ----------------------------*------------------------*------------------------ 
>  Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett  |"Nullum magnum ingenium | GURPS fan, Amiga user, 
> http://www.io.com/~jlockett | sine mixtura dementiae | Shakespearean scholar, 
>   Email: jlockett@io.com    | fuit." -- Seneca       | actor and director. 
>    
>    
 

Darryl Adams		dadams@tig.com.au 
 

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 16:35:05 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Thanks - Beyond the [solomani] rim...

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Joseph Chepe Lockett wrote:

Thanks to everyone who gave me an answer:)

> Quoth Solomani:
> > Whats the name of the sector "below" (away from core) the Solomani Rim (as
> > looking down on a 2 dimensional map:)


Peace,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


Ho-Ho
A SHELTER OF LEAVES
A sparrow, springing on this bamboo-cane,
Chirps at the downward sound of steady rain.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 02:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: IR Masking

  I've noticed that the arguements about ship detecting center on how
objects in space are going to be at about 300K.  Struck me that that is a
steady-state proposition - while an object will eventually reach that
state, if it is hotter or cooler it will take some time to reach
equilibrium temperature.

  Hence, the "Popsicle" series of stealthy missiles from Generica
Industries.  You just keep them in the freezer until use, and then send
them on their way at a nice temp that matches the background temp of the
universe.  Just the chance to say "Time for a party - get another six-pack
out of the fridge!" in character would be worth it.

______________________________
Dr. Mark Clark
Oregon Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 22:24:10 +1200
From: Rupert Boleyn <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Neutrinos

At 15:22 12/04/97 -0700, shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca wrote:

>  I think the "shielding detectors" concept won't fly, simply
>because the detectors don't interfere with the neutrinos.  That
>said, however, you also will be swamped by stellar background
>and unable to figure out someones location in anything like
>reasonable parameters.  Also, the Book 8 sensor is an order
>of magnitude or two too small for the best theoretical model
>we can imagine.
>       
>        Have fun, and re-read your physics texts,
>                Steven Hudson
>
I thought that to observe something you had to interfere with it, so
anything that can detect a neutrino signature would at least distort it.

R. Boleyn
 <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
TNE to the core

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 22:23:47 +1200
From: Rupert Boleyn <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Conservation (was Re: IR masking)

At 22:19 11/04/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Quoth Rupert Boleyn:
>> If the law of Conservation of Momentum isn't broken in T4 then how do
>> thrusters work? I thought that FF&S did away with them for this very reason.
>
>Momentum is conserved, the two components just aren't connected.  That is
>to say, your typical starship might mass some 1E9 grams, but the star (and
>attendant gravity well) against which its thruster plates push masses on
>the order of 1E33 grams, so it's kinda hard to notice its recoil....  :-)

Thanks for the explanation, I thought they were like the MT ones that IIRC
sort of push against themselves.
R. Boleyn
 <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
TNE to the core

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 22:24:01 +1200
From: Rupert Boleyn <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
Subject: Re: IR Masking

At 22:40 12/04/97 GMT, jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay) wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 19:07:30 +0200 (METDST), you wrote:
>
>> Rupert Boleyn quotes somebody else as saying:
>> >>The following laws of physics are INMSHO not breakable by SF handwaving:
>> >>Conservation of energy
>> >>Conservation of charge
>> >>Conservation of momentum
>> 
>> I'd like to point out that using a parallel dimension as a heat sink
>> wouldn't violate the law of conservation of energy. The energy isn't
>> destroyed, it's just move to another place. Yet if that would really
>> allow for perpetuum mobiles (how?) then it wouldn't be any good for
>> the Traveller universe.
>
>How?  Well, if a dimension exists that you can flood with your
>unwanted heat energy an keep it there, by the same logic the reverse
>should be possible by drawing energy out of another dimension.  The
>occupants of that dimension might complain a little :)
>
So that's what all these Black Holes are doing then?

R. Boleyn
 <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
TNE to the core

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 22:24:17 +1200
From: Rupert Boleyn <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Missiles+Fighters

At 23:11 12/04/97 -0800, rdhough@orca.bc.ca wrote:

>However, I do agree that neutrino detectors should be manditory for
>military vessels. The ability to detect fusion plants at interplanetary
>distances is so useful I can't understand why they aren't included in all
>military sensor packages. The rules seem to ignore them completely except
>for some mention about "analysing the fusion process of stars" or
>something.
>
I think that's because GDW felt that a neutrino detector that could find a
ship's fusion plant would be stoo big to be useful. They mention this
somewhere (Challenge perhaps) in an article on TNE space combat.

>In my campaign neutrino sensors have poor resolution, about 45 degrees of
>arc, but are very small and require low power (since I haven't allocated
>space or power for them in ship designs!) They are used to scan for bogeys
>in a system. If a suspicious neutrino source is detected the ship maneuvers
>and uses other sensors to get a weapon lock. This way ships can quickly
>decide whether to go to battle stations or continue with their missions.
>
>>Me and Daniel had some ideas about large gravity wave detectors
>>for detecting incoming outgoing ships. Any ship coming in from
>>hyperspace or jumping would create a huge gravity wave
>>detectable in an entire solar system.
>
>This is a cool idea, but I don't understand why a jumping ship would make a
>"huge gravity wave". Does it get more massive or what? Wouldn't this have
>unpleasant side effects on the crew and passengers? Gravity wave detectors
>would probably be useful for detecting contra-grav or thruster plates, but
>I don't see why jump drive would have such an effect. Someone please
>enlighten me if I am wrong.
>
A ship entering or leaving jumpspace would change the gravity 'pattern' of
the whole solar system. I suspect that the near instantaneous 'creation' of
1000+ tons of matter would be fairly easily detectable over almost any
amount of background noise. Does anyone with a stronger grounding in physic
wish to hazard an opinion? This could have substantial impact on warship
design and tactics in my new campaign.
R. Boleyn
 <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
TNE to the core

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 22:23:51 +1200
From: Rupert Boleyn <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
Subject: Re: TL 8 Laser Carbine

At 01:16 12/04/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Greg Porter would probably note that, if you get super-effective anti-
>personnel lasers too early, they eliminate the window for practical and
>economic gauss weapons.  TNE began to push laser tech levels back for
>just this reason, and Greg's probably just continuing the trend.
>
>Consider this: I like to have a good mix of weapons available in my game.
>If we go straight from gunpowder-based weapons to lasers, the variety
>suffers.  If lasers, for perfectly good physical reasons, take longer to
>become practical handheld weapons in a general rather than specialized
>role, we have the "room" to play with gyroc weapons, caseless rounds,
>binary propellant, gauss weapons, the BLAMs (Barrel-Launched ?Automatic?
>Munitions?) that BBC World Service talked about just the other day, etc.
>
Actually TNE and FF&S didn't push back laser TL's much, thay just made them
damn heavy before TL13, and limited in ammo at TL13+. What they did do was
turn them into specialised weapons by dumping on their rigid armour penetration.
R. Boleyn
 <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
TNE to the core

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 22:24:14 +1200
From: Rupert Boleyn <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

At 01:17 13/04/97 +0100, anders.backman@server.aniware.se wrote:
>>While it's no answer in the official Traveller timeline (as it extends from
>>our current state of affairs), I've always used the premise that cultures
>>with the relatively chaep intersteller flight of Traveller would have plenty
>>of space and resources, and thus wouldn't have the worship of minaturization
>>that the modern western world has.
>>
>>R. Boleyn
>
>Cool, I like the ref that extrapolates from Traveller future history
>instead of some contemporary furure historians. I see Solomani ahead in the
>military TLs, computer TLs but lacking in math, biology and especially in
>biology, law, etchics that the contemporary Solomani doesn't even consider
>TL related items.
>One Sf thingy: Why is it always (in SF) democraty that is the natural most
>efficient government? Or mhy no Bene Gesserit orgs that keep them
>bloodlines in order for the longterm good. Whas Norris gay for
>political/sexual/or bloodlines reasons?
>
>
>/Anders Backman
>Aniware AB
>anders.backman@aniware.se
>
Thanks for the compliment. 

I've always felt that the Solomani had very good materials technology,
because of the speed at which they developed J-3 Drives and because of their
AI robots (that NOBODY in the 3rd Imperium ever used). The robots bug me
because TL12 seems to be only good expert systems these days, but T4 has
IIRC the same paragraph as the old CT/MT stuff that says the Solomani Navy
was using AI robots for staff work during the fall of the 1st Imperium.

As for democracy in SF, I've always liked Piper, Pournelle and Anderson's
writing (among lots of others) and their works don't imply that. I'd say
that in some ways a good Democracy is damned inefficient (beware an
efficient government, they can pass laws so fast you'll be spinning).
R. Boleyn
 <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
TNE to the core

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 04:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>
Subject: PBEM: Players wanted

  Just a repeat announcement to make it clear that I will be running a
PBEM game starting May 1 based on the idea of a ISS rescue service.
Players will be either scout personell assigned to rescue boat duty, or
base personel with more minor roles in the story.  Titled "Beltwatch", the
game will be lighthearted and heroic in orientation, with standard
Traveller mechanics.  It is set in Millue 0.

  So far, I have two players: a pilot and an engineer.  I still would like
to have a medical officer and a sensor and communications operator.  For
those interested in a more minor role, any other sort of character is
appropriate, as long as you might live on a starbase.  I also welcome
kibitzers - I'll be happy to put you on my mailing list even if you don't
want to play.

  Please contact me ASAP so I can get the ball rolling - feel free to post
this message to other mailing lists or on web sites.  Look forward to
hearing from you!

______________________________
Dr. Mark Clark
Oregon Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 04:29:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>
Subject: The Imperial Yacht (5000T QSDS Design)

  For all its limitations, I rather like QSDS - I can do a design now in
less than an hour, even with a complicated ship, and that makes it fun to
try things on the spur of the moment.  Anyway, that's why I decided to
design an Imperial Yacht. 

  First, some justifications.  The ship is not armed (aside form a Meson
Screen) since it is a diplomatic vessal that comes in peace on state
visits.  Plus, it is escorted by big honking combat ships when it travels,
so it does not carry weapons so as to leave more space for luxury
appointments.  The ship usues a standard hull since Cleon is in favor of
trade and wanted to encourage the Sylea Industry Norm (SIN) way of
building ships.  Thus, the components of the ship act as a travelling
advertisement for Sylean and so Imperial Industry.  Moreover, he could
then order the different components from different manufacturers and so
spread the Imperial Favor around to more folks.

  Anyway, here's the design:


Imperial Yacht "Imperia" (QSDS)

Tons: 5000 STD (Wedge U)	Cost: 2697.6 MCr
Crew: 150	High/Mid Pass: 20/40	Low: 4
Cargo: 200 STD		Controls: Military	TL: 12

09 Size				3 Jump (1500 STD/30 Pc Fuel)
				4 Manuever (Thrust Plate)
				3x 3000 MW power plant
				1600 Fuel
				8 Meson Screen
				0 Sandcasters
1x 100T Spacious Hanger		0 Nuclear Damper
5x 100T Docking Ring		A16 P5 J16
				20 Armor, 28 Structure

Crew:	14 Engineers, 4 Electronics, 4 Manuever, 2 Screens, 
	10 Aux Craft, 40 Marines, 23 Command, 50 Stewards
	10 Medical


  The Yacht has a 40T imperial suite for His Majesty, ten 8T double
staterooms for his advisors and Imperial officials, and ten 4T and forty
2T staterooms for other members of the Imperial Household.  In addition,
there is a 300T Hall that serves as a formal recption and dining area, and
a 100T Hall that is an informal reception area and game room.

  The crew is housed in one 8T double Suite (the Captain), six 4T
staterooms (the First Officer, Marine Commander, Chief Steward, Chief
Engineer, Senior Medical Officer, and Chief Pilot), sixty-two 2T
staterooms (remaining command personel, and all operations crew), and
ninety bunks (Marines and stewards).  The operational crew is oversized,
with double the required number of engineers, manuever crew, and
electronics slots - this allows smooth operation in case of illness or
accident.  The large number of stewards ensure the comfort of the
passengers, and the Marines provide security.  In port, all non-senior
crew participate in entertainment and dining events, acting as assistant  
stewards under the supervision of the Chief Steward when they are not
needed for ship operations.

  The ship carries five 100T auxileries, which are publicly described as
M2 capable refueling craft based on the SIN standard Wedge Airframe hull
(see QSDS rules).  In fact, one or more of the five auxilery craft are J3
M6 fully capable spacecraft that can be used to ferry the Emperor to
secret meetings.  A total of six craft can be carried - however, normally
only five are along to allow the hanger to be used for maintnence or as a
docking port for visiting dignetaries.  The price of these aux vehicles is
not included in the above price (mostly because I have not gotten around
to designing them yet).

  The yacht is equiped with military-grade sensors, a large engineering
shop (12T), a vehicle shop, a ten-bed sickbay, and a fuel purification
system (normally not used since the ship travels to populated planets
with starports).  The ship can operate all systems and make M1 with only
one of the three 3,000 MW power plants operating; it can make M3 with only
two on line.  This redundency is intended to ensure the safety of the
Imperial family.

  Again, I am interested in comments - hope you find this ship useful in
your game.

______________________________
Dr. Mark Clark
Oregon Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 08:11:55 -0400
From: maverick@castlegate.net (Steve Brengard)
Subject: Re: Sylea --> Capitol

Did I say Planets, opps I meant I list containing all Sector, Sun-sector
and system information.

- ----------
> From: Steve Brengard <maverick@castlegate.net>
> To: traveller@MPGN.COM
> Subject: Re: Sylea --> Capitol
> Date: Saturday, April 12, 1997 9:25 PM
> 
> A long time ago I downloaded a near complete list of all the planets. I
> still have to hard copies (I printed them up) but I have lost the file.
> Anyone know where this file(s) can be found??
> 

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 97 14:01 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

In-Reply-To: <199704120313.WAA00285@bermuda.io.com>

<< But in a lecture hall or other conversational area, where I'm trying to
listen and record the heard information, I don't want to have to use my
own vocal apparatus to do it.  Too much opportunity for confusion, loss
of information, etc.  Keyboarding or handwriting has got to be available. 
>>

The computer hears the speech you're listening to, same as you.

    ---------=========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: Sun, 13 Apr 97 14:01 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

In-Reply-To: <970412.001250.2e2.rnr.w165w@krypton.rain.com>

<< > technological problem. It's also, in it's purest form, very
> personal...after training, another user will get worse recognition...you
> just can't swipe a pad off the top, write on it and expect it to recognize
> it. 

You don't need more processor power, just more RAM and a network that
it can download *your* profile from. >>

This will happen automatically - you'll be tracked wherever you go, and 
whatever you try to use will automatically adjust itself to your preferred 
configuration.

    ---------=========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: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 08:45:25 -0400
From: maverick@castlegate.net (Steve Brengard)
Subject: Spreadsheets

I am in the process of collecting all the spreadsheets I can find that help
out with Traveller RPG. I will select the best and created a web page where
they can be found. 
So if you have any submissions, let me know.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 09:18:30 -0400
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: IR Missiles

>>>>
VolantZep@aol.com writes:
I can tell you that based on our technology today why IR are inferior
missiles.  First of all they are completely Line of sight (LOS) only,
and
this is a major problem for ground based missiles.  And although we are
improving the ability to filter out most decoys, it is still pretty easy
to
fool an IR missile.  They are very susceptable to sun glint off of just
about
anything, including clouds. Once the lock is broken it has to be
manually
reaquired.  There aren't many air-to-air missiles that I can think of
that
are effective in todays arsenal.
<<<<

Um, sorry. I have to disagree.  Most of the new AIM-9 missiles are VERY
effective. The US has improved the logic and processing, not to mention
the IR resolution, to such a level that it is very unlikely for the
missile to miss. 

Most of the stats are classified, but if I remember correctly, the AIM-9
can pull 40+ G's in a turn and "bends" in the middle to help its
agility. They are *all* aspect (you no longer have to be in the rear arc
for firing), and are very difficult to fool with most decoys.  

If you have a radar track, you can slave the seeker head to that track,
and send the missile down the beam. It will detect and lock on to the
plane when it gets in range. This does make friendly pilots nervous as
it is still *dumb* and can lock onto anyone.

I have to agree, using IR for space combat seems the way to go for
missiles. Judging from the other notes it is very difficult to mask your
heat in space.

Which brings me to my question: Could a TL 12 - 15 ship approach earth
in todays environment without being detected?

If so, How?

Bob

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 06:44:32 +0000
From: "Suzette C. Dollar" <suzd@pop.goodnet.com>
Subject: Traveller Chat

Greetings!

I'm currently going through gear-head sensory overload, so this week 
we'll be chatting about Character Development.  Come chat with the 
group about what makes a good character, what kind of details do you 
think out in advance, and how does your character seem to grow as you 
play them.

This may be at least partially a repeat topic, but we have a wider 
audience of attendees now and the topic has been requested, so I'm 
going for it.

I'd love to lead the discussion, but I live in a state that doesn't 
change time zones so I can't make an 8pm EST start time and I'm 
hesitant to change it to a 9pm EST start time without due notice or 
consideration.  Any thoughts?

So, we'll be meeting at 8pm EST on Thursday, on IG's server, 
www.imperiumgames.com, port 6665 or 6666.  

I look forward to seeing everyone there!  Oh, and come prepared to 
request further topics!

Suz

Suzette C. Dollar
#traveller Channel Manager
suzd@goodnet.com

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1187
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest       Sunday, April 13 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1188



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

RE: Rimward of Solomani rim...
Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing
Perpetual heat sinks (was: Realism vs. play value)
Re: [TML] Backmans partial space combat system
Beltwatch
Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing
Re: Perpetual heat sinks (was: Realism vs. play value)
Re: Missiles+Fighters
Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing
Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing
Re: Missiles+Fighters
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Re: IR Missiles
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Earth approach (was: Re: IR Missiles)
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
RE: Rimward of Solomani rim...
Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)
Re: IR Sensors in Space
Re: Beyond the [solomani] rim...
Re: IR masking
Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII
Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing
Norris' sexual orientation
Consequences of Jump Uncertainties
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 09:46:08 -0500
From: "K.C. Komosky" <umkomosk@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Subject: RE: Rimward of Solomani rim...

>>Rimward of the Solomani Rim is Aldebaran. Rimward of THAT is Malorn
>>
>>K.C. Komosky
>
>Where did you get Malorn from? I've never seen anything rimward of 
Aldebaran.
>R. Boleyn
>

Why, from DGPs Solomani and Aslan book. They give a star map that extends 
one sector further rimward that the usualls seen maps of known space.

K.C. Komosky
umkomosk@cc.umanitoba.ca

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 10:51:12 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing

>First off, I object to the assertion that players who find and exploit
>unintended consequences of new tech/physics are "intentionally breaking
>the game," or that this behavior is confined to rules-lawyering munchkins.

[snip of very good example of "ruining" a game]

I agree with you that this is a wonderful act of creativity on the part of the
player, and should be rewarded. But all the examples/complaints up to this
have been of the "Well, if we allow that my players will use it to create 
perpetual motion machines/super weapons/fighters that can beat capital
ships" <g> and I call that munchkineering IMHO.

>it applies.  A good GM, setting up challenges, must both provide a few
>well-prepared paths to success, and be prepared to wing it if the players
>come up with something different.  The dilemma occurs when a player quite
>rightly and innocently uses their game-world knowledge to solve a problem
>in a way that ruins the game.

[snip]

>Result:  One wrecked scenario.  Your choices as GM?
>
>(1) Say 'no'.  This destroys the players' faith in your world, and hence
>    the joy of the game.  It also reduces the players' confidence that you
>    will reward clever solutions, a very bad trend in any game.
>
>(2) Say 'yes'.  Your careful preparations are out the window.  You either
>    ad lib your way through an entirely unplanned adventure (GM hell), or
>    tell everybody to go home half an hour after the session started, so
>    you can prepare the new paths.  This doesn't lead to happy players.
>
>All this from one casually hand-waved, seemingly harmless and irrelevant
>piece of technology.  Almost *any* change to the background can cause
>scenarios like this.  And notice that this is not munchkin behavior; I'd
>call the player creativity above very good role-playing.

But this happens all the time, anyway! A good 75% of the sessions I run go
into "GM hell" sooner or later due to the actions of some very intelligent 
and creative players of mine. And that's with the *standard* rules. I seriously
cannot see the addition of a "physics breaker" rule changing the percentage
of games that they "break" through creativity. And as for your (good} example,
how is this any different from the 
(fairly) recent account of a game someone (sorry if I forgot who) was 
running where he had a nice scenario much like yours w/ low-TL sentient
geneered rats, and one of the characters quite unexpectedly committed 
mass xenocide with the ship's laser? 

I CAN'T prepare for every contingency using standard rules and equipment,
does this mean we have to be stagnant little Villani then and never try any-
thing new (realistic or not) because we are afraid our players might come
up with some new ideas that we hadn't thought of? 

**********************************************************
  Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
 CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 11:02:26 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Perpetual heat sinks (was: Realism vs. play value)

>We presume that there exists a hole in the wall of your reactor room which
>leads to a parallel universe, into which you want to dump IR.  Given the
>nature of waste heat, you do this by putting a big radiator in front of
>it, and pumping your cooling fluid through it, allowing the heat to
>radiate into the hole.
>
>Now, being a one-way gate to a parallel universe, we derive that the hole
>has an effective temperature of 0 K.  So, I replace my working fluid with
>liquid helium.  I use the radiator as my condenser, let the cosmic 3 K
>background warm it up in an evaporator nearby, and place a paddlewheel in
>the condenser drain path.  Not perpetual, perhaps, but that paddlewheel
>will continue turning as long as the cosmic microwave background persists,
>and generate power in the process.

How much power is this paddlewheel going to produce? What kind of energy 
output is it going to have for a given size/rate of turning? Will it produce
enough
energy to break the game by making fusion obsolete/uneconomical? What is
the difference in game terms between this kind of "free" energy and that 
received by an array of super-efficient solar panels (other than the requirement
for a nearby star)? What if we state that, much like a jump engine, it can only
open the heat dump into "Dimension 32" outside of the 100-diameter limit?
Or make it take up as much space as a drive? Too costly for commercial ships,
but good for military applications when you just gotta be stealthy.

**********************************************************
  Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
 CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 11:20:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: VolantZep@aol.com
Subject: Re: [TML] Backmans partial space combat system

In a message dated 97-04-12 14:08:55 EDT, you write:

<< At 10:37 am 04/12/97 -0400, you wrote:
 >>Anybody interested in looking at it mail me for a copy (it's about 15K
 >>straight ascii) as I thought it was too big for mailing on the list
 >>directly.
 >>
 >I would like a copy of this. 
 
 	Ditto, please: goldendj@pcisys.net >>

Reditto me too!  toddmoody@aol.com

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 15:36:48 -0700
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Beltwatch

>From: Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>
>Subject: ISS Rescue Boat Design (Free Baywatch Ripoff Included!)

>  The more I thought about it, the more I liked the idea of a bald-faced
>Baywatch ripoff.  That's right, it's "Beltwatch," the most popular
>syndicated progam for Tri-V in the Imperium.  There's the ruggedly  
>  I'm so fired up by this idea that I've decided to run a PBEM set on
>Paradise.  The game will be a bit tongue in cheek - campy like Baywatch
>but true to the Traveller setting in M0.  I'll need four major characters:

Be sure to post episode synopses on TML!

- --Glenn

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 14:36:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: VolantZep@aol.com
Subject: Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing

In a message dated 97-04-13 12:36:50 EDT, you write:

<< Result:  One wrecked scenario.  Your choices as GM?
 >
 >(1) Say 'no'.  This destroys the players' faith in your world, and hence
 >    the joy of the game.  It also reduces the players' confidence that you
 >    will reward clever solutions, a very bad trend in any game.
 >
 >(2) Say 'yes'.  Your careful preparations are out the window.  You either
 >    ad lib your way through an entirely unplanned adventure (GM hell), or
 >    tell everybody to go home half an hour after the session started, so
 >    you can prepare the new paths.  This doesn't lead to happy players.
 > >>

(3)  The device to control thing is damaged beyond repair and can't be aimed
as they wanted and the result would be obvious to them if they research it
further that the current state of their ship will only create a fireball that
would destroy whats left of the ship if they try to use it.   Back to the
storyline.  ;^)  (And you can write down an exp point for that person for
good imagination or whatever you score exp pts for)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 14:29:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: VolantZep@aol.com
Subject: Re: Perpetual heat sinks (was: Realism vs. play value)

In a message dated 97-04-13 12:35:58 EDT, you write:

<< Subj:	Perpetual heat sinks (was: Realism vs. play value)
 Date:	97-04-13 12:35:58 EDT
 From:	pauld@athens.net (Paul D. Owensby)
 Sender:	owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
 Reply-to:	traveller@MPGN.COM
 To:	traveller@MPGN.COM
 
 >We presume that there exists a hole in the wall of your reactor room which
 >leads to a parallel universe, into which you want to dump IR.  Given the
 >nature of waste heat, you do this by putting a big radiator in front of
 >it, and pumping your cooling fluid through it, allowing the heat to
 >radiate into the hole.
 >
 >Now, being a one-way gate to a parallel universe, we derive that the hole
 >has an effective temperature of 0 K.  So, I replace my working fluid with
 >liquid helium.  I use the radiator as my condenser, let the cosmic 3 K
 >background warm it up in an evaporator nearby, and place a paddlewheel in
 >the condenser drain path.  Not perpetual, perhaps, but that paddlewheel
 >will continue turning as long as the cosmic microwave background persists,
 >and generate power in the process. >>

SARCASM MODE ON
The "TRUE" source of Quasars has finally been discovered.  Its someone from
another dimension dumping their energy into this one.   ;^)
SARCASM MODE OFF

Use it if you want but it ain't gonna happen in my games, or is this whole
string just BS.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 11:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Missiles+Fighters

> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 23:11:46 -0800
> From: rdhough@orca.bc.ca (Richard Hough)
>
> >Me and Daniel had some ideas about large gravity wave detectors
> >for detecting incoming outgoing ships. Any ship coming in from
> >hyperspace or jumping would create a huge gravity wave
> >detectable in an entire solar system.
> 
> This is a cool idea, but I don't understand why a jumping ship would make a
> "huge gravity wave". Does it get more massive or what? Wouldn't this have
> unpleasant side effects on the crew and passengers? Gravity wave detectors
> would probably be useful for detecting contra-grav or thruster plates, but
> I don't see why jump drive would have such an effect. Someone please
> enlighten me if I am wrong.

Gravity waves (in our universe) by rapid changes in the position of a
mass.  Sudden appearance/disappearance of a mass would be even more
effective.  In other words, at time t0, position X is vacuum; at time t0
plus epsilon, it's filled with many metric tons of dense material.  This
causes a *big* gravity wave to be generated.  Think of it as the ripples
from throwing a big rock into a pond.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 14:39:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: VolantZep@aol.com
Subject: Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing

Its like the old wish in D&D.  You grant their wish but you can twist it
enough that it ends up the party is worse off than before.  Creative GMing is
always a challenge.  You can't possibly have every solution to everything
they do already thought out in advance.  That's what makes GMing fun.  If it
always went as scripted that would be fairly boring I think.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 15:05:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: VolantZep@aol.com
Subject: Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing

In a message dated 97-04-13 04:27:41 EDT, you write:

<< Yuk! Ptooie!  You should at least let them try, and describe the failure
 and the reason it failed..."Ok, Kellen (the Engineer) roll a difficult task
 on Enginnering+EDU...[she rolls and you do to, but you don't tell her what
 *you're* rolling for <g>]..You succeed?  Ok. Boz, you're standing outside
 when Kellen cranks up the beam.  It lances away from the ship and you feel
 a blast of heat like from a furnace on your face. The air crackles and blue
 arcs of lightning pop up from the rocks along the length of the beam. 
 Above the keep's wooden roof begins to smoke and in less than a minute
 flames are viable. Then with a loud BANG, you are knocked on the seat of
 your pants. Sitting up you see that the beam is gone and there is smoke
 comming out out of your ship's hatch.  Kellen staggers out of the hatch
 with black streaks on her face and smoke still coming from her hair. 'Curse
 it!  The damn thing blew up!'  Up above at the keep you see dozens of men
 beating at the flames on the roof.  Dang! They're *really* going to be mad
 now!  It's clear that you should have RTFM, guys...this stealth beam isn't
 rated to work in an atmosphere...burns it out."<g>  
  >>

Wish I had read this before I replied.  BRAVO!!!

I agree with everything you said  Eris.  

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 15:13:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: VolantZep@aol.com
Subject: Re: Missiles+Fighters

In a message dated 97-04-13 04:19:15 EDT, you write:

<< This is a cool idea, but I don't understand why a jumping ship would make
a
 "huge gravity wave". Does it get more massive or what? Wouldn't this have
 unpleasant side effects on the crew and passengers? >>

I can imagine that a gravity wave can act like a sound wave when breaking the
sound barrier.  To those outside the ship they would experience it, like the
Sonic Boom, but those inside experience nothing, just like the passengers
aboard a supersonic jet hear no sonic boom.

Been there done that.  ;^)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 15:57:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: VolantZep@aol.com
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

In a message dated 97-04-13 11:00:45 EDT, you write:

<< As for democracy in SF, I've always liked Piper, Pournelle and Anderson's
 writing (among lots of others) and their works don't imply that. I'd say
 that in some ways a good Democracy is damned inefficient (beware an
 efficient government, they can pass laws so fast you'll be spinning).
 R. Boleyn >>

CJ Cherryh is still my favorite when it comes to the far future travel among
the stars genre.  The whole Merchanter series is quite excellent!  I highly
recommend any of the Union/Alliance books, which is what she calls them.  She
has her own web site that she keeps up herself also if any of you are
interested.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 15:58:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: VolantZep@aol.com
Subject: Re: IR Missiles

In a message dated 97-04-13 10:45:36 EDT, you write:

<< Um, sorry. I have to disagree.  Most of the new AIM-9 missiles are VERY
 effective. The US has improved the logic and processing, not to mention
 the IR resolution, to such a level that it is very unlikely for the
 missile to miss. 
 
 Most of the stats are classified, but if I remember correctly, the AIM-9
 can pull 40+ G's in a turn and "bends" in the middle to help its
 agility. They are *all* aspect (you no longer have to be in the rear arc
 for firing), and are very difficult to fool with most decoys.  
 
 If you have a radar track, you can slave the seeker head to that track,
 and send the missile down the beam. It will detect and lock on to the
 plane when it gets in range. This does make friendly pilots nervous as
 it is still *dumb* and can lock onto anyone. >>


I stand corrected on the AA missile.  I was refering mostly to Ground
launched and older AA missiles.  I have not been following the tech much in
the last few years. Sounds like AIM-9 are integrated and not purely IR
either, if you can slave it to a radar signal.  
 I agree with your assessment though, and most IR missiles at high TL would
be very deadly in or out of atmosphere. 

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 20:22:29 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

Douglas E. Berry wrote:
>On a related note, I've ruled that the blow-through rules only apply to
>small kinetic rounds (bullets), and lasers.  Explosives, plasma weapons, and
>other "mega-hurt" weapons should do their full damage.

I've just limited it to kinetic rounds - on the basis that the laser will
do more damage as it boils off the fluids in the target. I read a
description in a game once (2300?) of the effect of a laser hit - if you
remove the limit, it (1) seems to make it in line with this and (2) gives a
reason to prefer lasers to gauss weapons....

- --------------- Dom Mooney (dom@cybergoths.u-net.com)---------------
"The fall of Empire, Gentlemen, is a massive thing, however, and not easily
fought. It is dictated by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a
freezing of caste, a damming of curiousity - a hundred other factors."
                                 Hari Seldon - Azimov's "Foundation"

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 16:56:42 -0400
From: russcm@zoomnet.net (Christopher M. Russell)
Subject: Earth approach (was: Re: IR Missiles)

>Which brings me to my question: Could a TL 12 - 15 ship approach earth
>in todays environment without being detected?
>
>If so, How?
>
>Bob

It could approach from behind the moon. Once past the moon, it could be
picked up by Norad radar, but if it is aware of that system, then it could
come in from the south polar region. Even if the radar was a threat, with tl
12+ tech, it could be easily jammed, and Norad would simply blame it on a
solar flare.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 15:23:34 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

> I've just limited it to kinetic rounds - on the basis that the laser will
> do more damage as it boils off the fluids in the target. I read a
> description in a game once (2300?) of the effect of a laser hit

I also read this in on old JTAS for Traveller--it was in a section 
detailing Medical Rules and talked some about the nature of laser 
wounds.

 - if you
> remove the limit, it (1) seems to make it in line with this and (2) gives a
> reason to prefer lasers to gauss weapons....

One thing I really liked about TNE was their definition of a laser.

In that game, a laser could not penetrate ridgid armor--you need a 
slug thrower to do that.

Flexible armor, on the other hand, is considered as no armor vs a 
laser because it burns right through it.

The reason I like this definition is that it give a purpose for both 
lasers and slug throwers (gauss weapons) in a high tech society.

Your characters have to weigh the pros and cons.  If you think you 
are going up against enemies in vac suits or flak jackets, you use 
your laser against them.  OTOH, if your enemy has combat armor, your 
laser, with all it's ammo, is nothing--you need a good old guass 
rifle to punch through their armor.

I'd like to see that line of thinking transposed to T4.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 09:53:02 +1200
From: Rupert Boleyn <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
Subject: RE: Rimward of Solomani rim...

At 09:46 13/04/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>>Rimward of the Solomani Rim is Aldebaran. Rimward of THAT is Malorn
>>>
>>>K.C. Komosky
>>
>>Where did you get Malorn from? I've never seen anything rimward of 
>Aldebaran.
>>R. Boleyn
>>
>
>Why, from DGPs Solomani and Aslan book. They give a star map that extends 
>one sector further rimward that the usualls seen maps of known space.
>
>K.C. Komosky
>umkomosk@cc.umanitoba.ca
>
Ah, I see now. In this benighted place (New Zealand) we never got things
like DGP products.


R. Boleyn
 <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
TNE to the core

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 15:28:21 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <dsummers@mail.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)

Fri, 11 Apr 1997 08:17:02 -0700, Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
> And supposedly, the computers on the Shuttle are still using ferrite core
> memory.  Supposedly each of the computers is less powerful than a 386.
> Anyone know for certain?

This hasn't been true for some time.

____________________________
[NASA and I don't speak for each other...]
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 15:27:45 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <dsummers@mail.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: IR Sensors in Space

Thu, 10 Apr 1997 14:43:15 -0600, Jon Goff <jongoff@et.byu.edu>
>The
>fact is that that star is hot, but it is very far away.

Actually, I ran through the numbers.  A star may be "very"
far away, but it is "very very" hot.  Hot enough to be brighter
than a starship moving through the solar system.

>The fact is,
>the planet is hot--but it too is very far away.

It would be interesting to do the numbers for a planet.

____________________________
[NASA and I don't speak for each other...]
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 10:33:05 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: Beyond the [solomani] rim...

On Sun, 13 Apr 1997, Rupert Boleyn wrote:

> According to the map labled "Charted Space" in TNE the sector rimward of the
> Solomani Rim sector is the Aldebaran sector as do the maps in the Rebellion
> Sourcebook. I've never seen anything further rimward than that though, so I
> guess you'd fall off the edge of the galaxy if you went any further.
> 

Or maybe theres a short route to the west indies out there? :)  But be
carefull of space monsters.



Im out like bell bottom trousers,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


Pilgram: "God, can you be merciful and send me off to hell and
	  lock me in forever?"

God:	 "Pilgram, I will not send you there, but if you chose to
	  go there, I could never lock you out."
The Singer

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 20:20:31 -0400
From: Ethan Henry <ehenry@magmacom.com>
Subject: Re: IR masking

> >> Wouldn't need to do it like that. You can have a record of typical emissions
> >> the ship produces in a given situation and transmit based on that
> >> information. This would go a long way in dampening the emissions made by the
> >> power plant.
> >
> >Nope. You have to match the emitted waveform *exactly in phase,
> >frequency and amplitude. Otherwise you are *increasing* the emissions. 
> >
> >Using a recording of previous emissions would be like trying to cancel
> >the rap music leaking in from your neighbor by playing the same record!
> 
> I take it you're not a rap fan.

I've discovered that you can cancel out rap music by sending complaint 
letters to the owner or the building. I don't know how well this will 
apply to space combat though.

The problem with having a ship cancel its own signature is that it's 
kind of like using your stero to cancel its own noise - it's just gonna 
sound funny. You need 2 disconnected sources to do this trick. You're
better off unplugging the thing entirely.

Ethan

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 97 19:24:41 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing

On 04/13/97 at 03:05 PM,  VolantZep@aol.com said:

>Dang! They're *really* going to be mad now!  It's clear that you should
have >RTFM, guys...this stealth beam isn'trated to work in an
atmosphere...burns it >out."<g>  

> Wish I had read this before I replied.  BRAVO!!!

Thank you, thank you very much! ;->

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 18:49:30 -0700
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

>From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)

>One word... "canon".  Do you REALLY want to redraw every "official"
>sector in the Traveller universe in 3D?  Trade routes would change, as
>would political boarders [sic].

The best fix that I've seen (which I've since incorporated) is to deem
the 2D star maps to be representations of jump space -- they show how
far apart the stars are in jump terms.  Who cares about how far light
has to travel to go from one to another (well, astrophysicists, but
the 2D maps are for purposes relating to transportation, not pure 
science)?

- --Glenn

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 02:06:02 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing

On Sun, 13 Apr 1997 14:36:27 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:

> In a message dated 97-04-13 12:36:50 EDT, you write:
>=20
> << Result:  One wrecked scenario.  Your choices as GM?
>  >
>  >(1) Say 'no'.  This destroys the players' faith in your world, and =
hence
>  >    the joy of the game.  It also reduces the players' confidence =
that you
>  >    will reward clever solutions, a very bad trend in any game.
>  >
>  >(2) Say 'yes'.  Your careful preparations are out the window.  You =
either
>  >    ad lib your way through an entirely unplanned adventure (GM =
hell), or
>  >    tell everybody to go home half an hour after the session started,=
 so
>  >    you can prepare the new paths.  This doesn't lead to happy =
players.
>  > >>
>=20
> (3)  The device to control thing is damaged beyond repair and can't be =
aimed
> as they wanted and the result would be obvious to them if they research=
 it
> further that the current state of their ship will only create a =
fireball that
> would destroy whats left of the ship if they try to use it.   Back to =
the
> storyline.  ;^)  (And you can write down an exp point for that person =
for
> good imagination or whatever you score exp pts for)

This doesn't answer the question regarding whether or not it is
possible to do what this player suggested; it only ignores the issue.
You're going to need an answer the next time the players attempt to
perform the same task.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 19:08:30 -0700
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Norris' sexual orientation

>From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
>Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

>bloodlines in order for the longterm good. Whas Norris gay for
>political/sexual/or bloodlines reasons?

When did we establish that Norris was gay?

- --Glenn

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 19:05:30 -0700
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Consequences of Jump Uncertainties

>From: Marcus <uphhsmt@gemini.oscs.montana.edu>

>        I've been thinking about the positional variation when doing a jump.  It
>lead me to believe that there should be a time uncertainty as well.  It

>This implies a need for very
>large ships carrying smaller attack craft through the jump. 

This must be why battle riders were developed -- why haven't I thought of this 
in the 18 or so years that I've been playing Traveller?  

- --Glenn

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 19:19:03 -0700
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

>From: Idiot/Savant <idiot@sans.vuw.ac.nz>

>> One Sf thingy: Why is it always (in SF) democraty that is the
>> natural most efficient government?

> Because most english-language SF is written by people who live in (gasp)
>democracies, and have been told from day one that it is both the (morally)
>best (least worst?) and most efficient form of government.

I don't think that anyone would take the position that democracy is the most efficient 
form of government, nor is it particularly natural.  Rather, it is fair and perceived as 
fair and therefore desireable by most people in the world who have some choice of what 
sort of government they have, as well as by a lot of people who don't have a choice.  

In fact, democracy, especially in the republican form established throughout Europe and 
the Americas, is intended to be somewhat inefficient, in order to provide enough due 
process that it will be perceived as fair and therefore legitimate.

Nazi Germany, by contrast, had a pretty efficient government -- really a 
government/business alliance.  

- --Glenn

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1188
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest       Monday, April 14 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1189



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Realism vs. Play Value
Re: Norris' sexual orientation
IRC start times
Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)
Re: Computer Tech
Re: IR masking.
Re: CSC Armor?
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII (longish)
Re: Realism and gearheading
Re: Norris' Sexual Orientation
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII
Re: IR masking
What is Science? (was Re: Realism vs. Play Value)
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
2D starmaps
Re: Emperor's Arsenal
Re: Storing H2

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 20:03:02 -0700
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value

At 09:34 AM 4/12/97 -0600, David J. Golden wrote:
>... I'm an engineer and a gearhead,
>but I have no trouble with imagination. I play both fantasy and science
>fiction RPGs, but I do draw a line between them. If I wanted to play "space
>fantasy" I'd pick up Star Wars, which, incidentally, has a good degree of
>internal self-consistency.
>
>	To me, the lack of imagination comes in from people who whine "Oh, reality
>won't let me do what I want." I'd rather see what SCIENCE fiction lets me
>do, and then apply my imagination to that. 

I agree.  But the line between what you can support with science and what
requires the leap to the fantastic appears to be different for everyone.  

For example, I'm considering a highly technological, hard SF game where the
element of "magic" (for lack of a better word) appears.  I can justify this
in scientific terms with what I believe is an appropriately small amount of
hand-waving, but even so, I imagine some SF fans would just say "ugh, that
smells like magic!" no matter how well it is justified.  

>People who believe that
>playability and realism are on the opposite ends of the spectrum are the
>ones who seem to lack the imagination, IMHO. For Example: Larry Niven wrote
>"The Ringworld." A bunch of gearheads at MIT sat down, and calculated that
>it was unstable (it would fall into the sun if left alone), and stood in
>the halls at a science fiction convention chanting that. He didn't chastise
>them for THEIR lack of imagination, he applied HIS imagination to USE
>reality to come up with a sequel. THAT'S imagination--instead of turning
>your back on a logical extension of what you've decreed, USING it.

But you're example isn't about playability.  I do think that in many cases
realism and playability are on opposite ends of a spectrum, where realism
is defined as corresponding to the real world in detail, and playability as
being easy to comprehend and manipulating without detracting from the fun
of the game.  If you meant _plausibility_ or internal consistency or
something like that, then I think I agree with you: it is entirely possible
to make a playable, enjoyable system that is also consistent with the real
world to some degree, and (more importantly) consistent with itself and
with our own extrapolations of how things _might_ work.  


- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 00:42:41 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: Norris' sexual orientation

Glenn M. Goffin asks:

>When did we establish that Norris was gay?

   GDW never just came out and said it, but if you "read between the
lines", his relationship with his trusted aide seemed to go well beyond
employer-employee, and I don't mean that they went trout fishing
together (note I said 'trout' not 'trouser').

Regards,

Harold

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 22:45:49 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: IRC start times

>I'd love to lead the discussion, but I live in a state that doesn't
>change time zones so I can't make an 8pm EST start time and I'm
>hesitant to change it to a 9pm EST start time without due notice or
>consideration.  Any thoughts?

I would approve.  As a west coast person, an 8pm start time is 5 here.
Work gets a bit excited at the "Sorry, must go.  Hot IRC session..."
commetn about 4:30.  One that starts at 6 our time is possible.

Whether this is a good thing, I suppose, depends on how many people it
closes out.
Scott

- -------
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu.  http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz/
"You die, she dies, EVERYbody dies" - Heavy Metal
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment results" -
Calvin Coolidge, attrib. by Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 09:32:59 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)

>>And supposedly, the computers on the Shuttle are still using ferrite core
>>memory.  Supposedly each of the computers is less powerful than a 386.
>>Anyone know for certain?
>
>Even scarier, they were made by Apple!
Well at least they didn't put Intel processors in it. As a matter of fact
no sattelites or space probes have intel cpus in them. The Motorola 68000
or 68HC11 or similar is the norm.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 09:44:47 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Computer Tech

>> TL-13 Holographic displays with tactile feedback, kinda a 3d touch screen,
>> no need for VR gloves and HUD's.

How does the holodisplays with tactile feedback work? Some kind of focussed
nervestimulations on the fingers or what? Perhaps a helmet that stimulate
the brain to feel as if you touched stuff (that would be a bit far out I
think).


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 09:41:37 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: IR masking.

>However, the type of dampening I am refering to is from known, rateable
>sources coming from the ship, like the power plant, etc. This will work
>somewhat similar to shining two differently colored lights togeather and
>getting the result matching the average of their two frequencies. Example,
>shine red and voilet togeather and you get something in the range of green,
>I believe. The IR masking would be adveraging the frequency of the first
>with a matching frequency, just 180 degrees out of phase (or as close as
>possible to 180 out).

You need to measure a full cycle at least to determine the wavelength and
as IR is "noise" not city traffic but real white noise so your idea is
impractical at best. Another problem that makes it even more unusable is
the fact that if two lightsources of same wavelength and opposite phase
cancel each other out where does the energy go? It will be heat and there
you go again. Sound dampeners convert accoustic energy into heat, you
cannot convert heat energy into nothing unless you can break the
conservation of energy law and if you can do that anything is possible.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 09:51:13 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: CSC Armor?

>No offense taken, the reason I think in the way of adding armor like
>that is the I started my Traveller playing with TNE and FFS in which the
>armor is treated that way. Which in my opinion is much easier and many
>ways more realistic. OK, there might be some nonlinearity but that will
>probably differ between materials quite a lot. Not that I have a very
>good replacement or anything, but I just wanted to mention something I
>though was strange.
>
> / Per

Well as far as I can tell armour is linear (and my trusty Rheinmetall
gunbook supports me there) but Greg has for some reason abandoned his
earlier linear armour formula.
Another note however is that Striker armour was nonlinear as they converted
it to a log value and as you know adding logs is the same as multiplying
the unlogged values. The striker tables where linear the first few steps
which made them unusable by log arithmetic and normal arithmetic as well.

I use a logscale for damage, penetration, damage absorption where x10
equals +6. This makes all numbers from fists to mesonguns manageable and
does away with hitpoints etc.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 10:01:46 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

>I could see two things happening if this were feasible.
>1- If detected the heat signature is spread out making a hard lock more
>dificult.
>2- By spreading the heat signature out, you have the possibilty to lower it
>enough to be lost in the background heat.
>
>Well, Im just blowing theories out, can the hard science boys help me here?
>
>
>Last I want to ask a real world to Traveller clarificaton.
>
>Why are IR missiles less desirable than radar guided?
>Arguement: Would a Jet Turbine aircraft scraming through the atmosphere not
>have a hign skin tempature? If so why are IR sensors not used more for
>detection.
>
>I imagine there are some logical reasons, probably having to due with that
>pesky atmosphere thing.
>
>Best,
>Joel Connors

Power emitted per square area is prop to temperature in kelvins to the 4:th
power ie

p = k T^4 where k is a constant.
By increasing your radiated area you lower the temperature you're radiating
thus making you harder to see. Masking tech on tanks etc work by spreading
the engine exhaust heat over the hull. This works much better on earth than
in space as the background temp here is about 300 K while in space it's
about 3 K.

Atmosphere contains lots of water vapor that blocks IR. This is the reason
temps go down when you climb mountains as the amount of water in the air
drops faster than pressure. Some weird IR astronomers in Sweden has put IR
telescopes on high altitude baloons to get above the water vapor and thus
be able to see in IR without using sattelites.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:09:44 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII (longish)

<I snipped your comments on penis size, Nintendo generation etc as I felt
it a > bit off topic.>

>> My Traveller players have been, astronomers, programmers,
>>chemists, fighterpilots, cops, astrophyscists etc and I have to run a
>>universe that seems believable to them.
>
>As do we all. But in my case, my players don't want pseudo-science in the
>guise of hardcore shoved down their collective throat either (ever design a
>small firearm in FFS? Or a motorcycle? A perfect example of the seeming
>belief that if we can just throw on enough gobbledy-gook, it'll be realistic).

I'm sorry for my previous rashness and NO i don't think one has to be a
astronomer or whatever to enjoy Traveller, I merely stated that those are
my players which makes it extra hard for me as a ref. They generally know
MORE about each particular tech topic that come up in the game so I like to
do my homework.

Why I posted so LOUDLY was some guy made a case that technology are only
plot devices and that whenever science clashes with the story drop the
science. Any weird science is OK by me but one should not throw it in
without taking in the larger picture. If one can raise people from the dead
(canon in MT I think) then it has to have some impact on society. Will
people get mre reckless as they know they generally can be fixed up.
FF&S and the such are not what I want but rather some thought behind
scientific principles before inventing something into the game. Greg made
up some blackbody paint for spacevehicles that I think is totally idiotic.
The only thing it would do is making the ship a lot hotter and invisible to
rader that most people has agreed upon as quite unrealistic in space.

As for computer technology I think we need to do some work here in order to
make Traveller more beliavable. First I assume that Earth computer tech
today is at least TL 8. Then make some computer performance progression
like Greg has done (nipped from GURPS methinks) and start thinking about
what one does with the computers in the far future. Also how does
encryption work? In my universe there are efficient algorithms for
calculating primes a lot faster than today. This makes encrypting
interesting as one cannot safely encrypt like you can today.
Another thing to remeber when doing computer stuff: Hackers/crackers will
always use cruder stuff with cruder interfaces than Joe Public ie if
cruising the cyberspace with greenlines and chrome shapes is the norm then
hackers will have some simple windows interface to to the hacking.
Hacking/cracking consists of knowing the underlying mechanisms that the
higher level inteface abstracts away. Inmovies the reverse is almost always
the case.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:37:48 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Realism and gearheading

>  How one can play a RPG without
>imagination is beyond me.  By the way, Mr. Backman, we are all very
>impressed with the list of "scientists" that you have as players.
>Ooooo......Ahhhhhhh.

I'm sorry if I offended some sensitive egos by noting that MY players are a
bit science heavy. I did NOT and do NOT imply that scientific players are
better smarter have longer penises or whatever some people on the list
think. I merely stated that for MY gaming group I need to be more
scientifically correct as my players generally are more knowledgable than I
in certain areas. The problems with badly thought out science is not that
players will build planet killers and whatnot but that they tend to stop
believing in the traveller Universe and start playing a character oriented
wargame instead. Now that you all know my standing lets get on with the
show!



/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 03:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Norris' Sexual Orientation

  I'd be interested in being pointed to the references that specifically
indicate what Norris' sexual orientation is.  I have the misfortune of
owning just about everything published for Traveller since the 1970s, and
absolutely everything for MT and TNE.  It has been some years since I read
much of that stuff, but as I recall there was no firm indication that
Norris was gay, though there was certainly nothing that said explicitly
that he was not.  As I recall, there were at least two other hypotheses
that were suportable - that Norris never found a woman that he liked
enough to have children with, or that he was simply asexual.  Not that I
have a preference for any of these options, it's just I don't remember
anything _specific_ about what sort of person Morris liked to get it on
with.

  As for gay characters in RPGs in general, I think one of the real
downsides of TSR's desire to keep Fundamemtalists and other extremists at
bay has been a general desire on the part of the gaming business to keep
RPGs safe for the minds of a 12 year old (or what parents think is safe
for the mind of a 12 year old - I remember what my 12 year old mind was
like and it was pretty dirty, thank you very much).  I'm an adult, I play
with adults, and I deal with adult themes (though I tend to treat sex with
a Victorean "the light dims and the screen fades as the lover's lips meet
- - the next morning we see them sharing breakfast on the veranda").  As a
result, gay, bi, and just plain weird folks inhabit my worlds, and since
one of the things I try and do with my Traveller future is to make it, at
least in some ways, a nicer place than today, people of non-hetero
orientation get to live their lives in peace, generally speaking.

  Ah well, sorry for the resort to the soapbox, but occasionally I have to
vent.  Back to some ship designs now, I hope.

______________________________
Dr. Mark Clark
Oregon Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 01:19:06 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

In mail you write:

> What are the viabilities of "dispersing" your signature. I'm a computer
> marketing geek, so forgive my vagueness here. I am going to go hypothetical
> with what I understand from your posts.

I almost forgot another trick that would work. But it's only practical
for *small* ships such as fighters.

You inflate a *big* balloon. Given the surrounding vacuum, this won't
take much. You open a flap and scoot your fighter inside. Now you have
your fighter, with power turned down to a minimum, hiding inside
something with a surface area of a square km or more (I said *big* :-).
So the heat emissions won't be suspiciously above normal for a large
meteroid or small asteroid. 

It'd be better to dock with a real asteroid and rig up a way to dump
your heat into the body of it (it has a lot more mass to absorb the
heat than the balloon does). But asteroids aren't always in a handy
location. 

The deflated ballon is gonna be a *large*, clumsy package. But it is a
workable idea. Even if it turns out that a fighter can't haul it, a
large ship can drop it off, and inflate it, and the fighter can come by
later.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 00:30:48 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: IR masking

In mail you write:

> A lot of the analysis here depends on the one presumption which
> I find questionable.  That excess energy must be lost of passive
> black body emission.  The fact is that one can certainly see
> a ship masking itself by either using a force emission at
> a wavelength that is better masked by the background (like
> the interstellar microwave background) and by emitting the
> energy on a tight beam away from the enemy.

Sorry, but thermodynamics says that you can't turn waste energy (heat)
into coherent emissions. That'd involve reversing entropy. Therefore,
the temp of emissions is determined by watts per square meter. And it
has to follow something approaching a black body *distribution*.

To put it another way, a surface at a given temp *must* radiate a fixed
amount of energy per square meter. And the amount goes *up* as the
wavelength goes up.

> The only requirement that thermodynamics imposes is that
> you spend energy to do this.

Yeah, but it takes a *lot* of energy to make a "significant" shift. And
the amount required varies with the 4th power of the temp difference
you are trying to maintain. It's that 4th power law that kills the idea.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 01:45:26 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: What is Science? (was Re: Realism vs. Play Value)

From the comments several of the "let's not let realism get in the way"
fols are making, I strongly suspect that they are victims of what
passes for an educational system in the US.

You see, "science" is nothing more (and nothing *less*!) than the
*only* RELIABLE means of forecasting the future that we have
discovered. 

It starts with the idea that the universe has rules. And continues with
the idea that they don't change. So if X causes Y today, it'll do so
tomorrow. If it doesn't then either there was a factor involved that
you didn't notice the first time. or there was one involved the second
time (ie you are either missing something that was there the first
time, or there was something *extra* present the second time).

This means that we *can* confidently make statements about what will be
possible in the future.

You see, contrary to what the media would have you believe, things like
relatibity did *not* through out the existing science. It just added
"qualifiers" to the rules they had discovered. Newtonian physics gives
perfectly good answers as long as you don't get too close to the speed
of light or too near really outrageous gravity fields.

Whenever *science* discovers "new" rules, the old rules *will* be a
"special case" of the new ones. That is, you'll be able to use the old
rules in the type of situations they'd been tested and confirmed in,
just *not* in the type of situation where the new rules were
discovered. That means that the new rules "simplify" to the old rules
in most cases.

And this is why we insist that things like conservation of energy, the
laws of thermodynamics, etc *have* to apply in things like space
combat. Because we have extensive experience with speeds that high,
vacuums that low, and those sorts of temperatures. So there's *nothing
new* involved.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 00:41:55 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

In mail you write:

> What are the viabilities of "dispersing" your signature. I'm a computer
> marketing geek, so forgive my vagueness here. I am going to go hypothetical
> with what I understand from your posts.
> Theory:
> A heat signature from a 100 ton craft is very noticable, partly becuase you
> have that much heat in that little space. 
> Background space has a certain amount of heat sources and "tides".
> Genertated from local stars, planets, space debis, dust clouds, etc.
>
> Craig, have I hit even close to the nail here?
>
> If the above theories are true, then would it be possible to bleed your heat
> over a larger area? 
> Example, the afore mentioned 100 ton ship has the ability to spread its heat
> signature out over an area of space 10-20 times greater than its actual area.

Trouble is, you have to have *matter* to radiate the heat from. So
dispersing the signature requires radiators that big. And radiators,
beside having mass (there are a few dodges to lower the mass if you
aren't manuevering) have the nasty habit of reflecting things like
radar and lidar. 

The most *practical* way to spread the emissions is also a current
candidate for overcoming the problems with getting enough radiator area
for some prposed future designs (something Traveller tends to overlook).

What you do is emit drops of heated liquid, project them into space and
capture them after they've cooled. Having large amounts of surface area
in relation to their volume, they cool quickly.

The designs I've seen tend to look like this:

                               /\
                              /  \
                             /|  |\
                            / |  | \
                           /  |  |  \
                          /   |  |   \
                         /    |  |    \
                        /     |  |     \
                       /      |  |      \
                      ========|  |========
                              +--+

The "wings" are streams of droplets, the "=" are collection troughs.
You can have up to 3 panels without them interfering with each other.

The big disadvantage is that you need a long, thin ship to get really
large radiator areas. And the troughs have to be wide enough to not
only handle any spread from the sprayers, but also any manuevering you
do. 

You can practice some "emmission control" by having extra troughs and
sprayers, so you can use different "facings" for the panels. Cut power
down to where you only need two of them, and place them so they are
parallel to the line of sight of the enemy. So all he'll see is the
edge emissions from *one* of them. While it'll still be "hot", it'll be
a much smaller source.

The sort of ships these are being considered for in the real world are
such that the droplets will be white hot as they emerge, and will have
cooled to dull red or farther by the time they are collected. It makes
for a rather striking visual appearance, but lousy stealth. :-)

In theory, you could get a field like a black globe to radiate energy,
but that's apt to be TL17+

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:24:20 +0200
From: Nicolas LEJEUNE <nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

At 10/04/97, Paul Owensby wrote:

>>TL12-15 computers definitely won't have any keyboards
>Oh? and what do you suggest using for imput in crowded starport lounges
>or in lecture halls where you don't want to disturb/be overheard by others?
>Pens? I can type a lot faster than I can write, and with less strain. I
won't 
>even mention legibility... :)

Anders Backman suggested PEN: As Paul noticed, we write slower than we
type. But not if we write Shorthand. Steno writing is as fast as speaking.
BTW Latin langage have few letters, The wider caracter sets langages should
write faster than they type as the keyboard become very complicated.

And for the massive data entries the virtual keyboard should be the a good
solution as Per Bernhardsson said. Maybe something like Leonard one handed
virtual "chord" pad helped by finger movement detection. 

Darryl Adams talked about a Neural interface. And I personnaliy see a eye
ball movement detector (using a laser). Neveron@aol.com suggested a lip
reading as HAL 9000 in 2001


There are many possibilities. Which one will be, I don't know but I think
not the keyboard/mouse. It takes too many room on a desk, You don't know
where to put a sheet of paper. You always have to leave the keyboard to use
the mouse (or the pen). It's too hard to use for beginners. I'm on computer
for more than 14 years now. I'm still typing with 4 fingers (I didn't have
a secretary course!). I type faster than I write but not much faster, just
a little faster (not more than 30% faster). For those who didn't noticed I
HATE KEYBOARDS!

Now, we have to think about the need of the keyboard. Several TMLers
mentionned the lecture hall. Do you need to type in a lecture hall?
Wouldn't you get all the books you need scanned on your portable computer
then go back home and use the data. BTW do Lecture Hall still exist in TL15
societies. Maybe the networks could bring all books on "screens" at home.
In this case you should sing to your computer as you want. 
Personnally I usually speak when I'm typing (programming/writing). This
helps me to concentrate on my work. 

Other examples of needless keyboard : Cafe, ordering sheets, Web browsing,
data research. In two words INFORMATION READING. Most of our use of
computer is information reading. In this case you don't need Keyboard, you
just need a mouse or a pen, or a eyeball movement detector to start
commands (or opening menus...). You want a proof : Look at the total used
disk space on you computer. Now look at the disk space used by the
documents you've wrote. If you have 1Go of used space, I'm not sure that
you have more than 1Mo of writen text files (1Mo = 500pages pocket book).
Or you are a professionnal writer or a mad programmer.

A programmer write 100 lines a day (including design, tests and debug).
Having a very fast data entry in not necessary for programmers and
ingineers. BTW, it's thousand times more complicated to make a drawing with
a keyboard/mouse than with a Pen.


So _my_ opinion on computer ergonomy is
* for simple device : pen on a notepad
* for usual computer : eyeball movement detector (mouse) and Virtual one
handed chord pad or lip reader (keyboard)
Both are enhanced with vocal recognition of course. This recognition is
effective enough to distinct different people as our ears do.

And for the display I would say some kind of laser projector (holographic)
in 2D or 3D. But not this $#&@% big screen we don't know where to put it.


- -----------
Nicolas LEJEUNE
   Engineer, Paris, France
   Traveller (TNE), and WhiteWolf RPG
   Mailto:nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:56:18 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: 2D starmaps

>The best fix that I've seen (which I've since incorporated) is to deem
>the 2D star maps to be representations of jump space -- they show how
>far apart the stars are in jump terms.  Who cares about how far light
>has to travel to go from one to another (well, astrophysicists, but
>the 2D maps are for purposes relating to transportation, not pure
>science)?
>
>--Glenn

A good solution but light propagation plays a role in some adventures and
then it's neat to know how far apart two systems are for those
calculations. Also when scanning for gasgiants at several parsecs one need
to know the real distance between systems. All in all however its the best
handwave so far. Curiously it has never been an issue with my players.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:23:37 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Emperor's Arsenal

>One thing I really liked about TNE was their definition of a laser.
>
>In that game, a laser could not penetrate ridgid armor--you need a
>slug thrower to do that.
>
>Flexible armor, on the other hand, is considered as no armor vs a
>laser because it burns right through it.
>
>The reason I like this definition is that it give a purpose for both
>lasers and slug throwers (gauss weapons) in a high tech society.
>
>Your characters have to weigh the pros and cons.  If you think you
>are going up against enemies in vac suits or flak jackets, you use
>your laser against them.  OTOH, if your enemy has combat armor, your
>laser, with all it's ammo, is nothing--you need a good old guass
>rifle to punch through their armor.
>
>I'd like to see that line of thinking transposed to T4.
>
>Kenneth.

I'd say the most important effect of lasers is its speed of light making it
fairly easy to hit highspeed planes, missiles etc without worrying about
lead angle etc. I'd say lasers with firecontrol would never miss a plane if
they can see it and this is the reason gravtanks where developed. They have
good armour versus lasers and hug the ground to be harder to detect. High
flying aircraft will be instantly shot down in the future. This is good as
I otherwise see no reason why gravtanks should exist (I know the real
reason is that all wargamer-referees want to play SquadLeader with
futuristic miniatures but I let that pass).


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:01:10 +0100
From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Storing H2

Per Bernhardsson <bard@ludd.luth.se> writes:

> I just read something interesting. (Anders Backman and any other
> Swedes can look it up, Ny Teknik, Issue 14, April 4th pg 28-29).
> Currently it's possible to store 1716 kg H2 per m^3, what does the
> Traveller rules say about packing H2? How much space is required?

Water holds 111 kg H2 per m^3 (or thereabouts); L-hyd has a density 
of 74 kg / m^3 or thereabouts.  Conventional techniques for storing 
H2 gas in palladium metal do better than 74 kg H2 / m^3, but not that 
much better.  So this would be an order of magnitude better than 
existing technology...

> Ok, a quick description of the technique to store the H2. The tank is
> filled with grafite nanofibres, which (they think) slows down the
> molecules so that 5 layers of molecules can be stored where there
> really should only be room for 1 layer.

More likely is that the H2 molecules adsorb onto the surface, donate 
electron density to the fibres and/or are held in interstices of the 
graphite (i.e. between layers, I suppose).  Given the extremely thin 
layers, I'd say a lot was due to electron donation.

> For you who want numbers. Each
> layer is 0.34 nm thick. One problem with this way of containing H2 is
> that the nanfibres stop working correctly after a few uses, but that
> might be fixed... At least in a few TLs... Don't you think? :)

I suspect it's an inevitable consequence of the hydrogen atoms being 
drawn so close to the fibres... sooner or later, they'll tunnel into 
the structure and start making hydrocarbon.  In fact, I bet all this 
is done at low temperatures.

Does the original article have any references?  I'd expect to see 
details in Phys Rev B, or J. Chem. Phys. if this were true...  
Please send details if there are any. (Who did the work, as well?)


Nick
(who wishes he'd known about this when he wrote his PhD thesis on H2 
adsorption on metals, some months ago)

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1189
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest       Monday, April 14 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1190



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Why we discuss fighters
Re: Norris
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Live is Hard in Traveller.(task system & Reality...)
Starships
Re:  Norris' Preferences
Re: H2 Storage
April THUDDD
ATTENTION ATTENTION
Strange Tech Levels (was Re: book request)
Pigeons: The Academic Citation
First Survey and B pop worlds
First Survey and the Tech Level of Vland
History of the Geonee, Part 4
History of the Geonee, Part 5
No Intel's in space?
Ship cooling mechanisms

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:31:13 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Why we discuss fighters

>But when people say that "fighters are useless, because they can not work
>in the real world",
>are missing the point. (this is just an example mind you). Traveller
>ALWAYS (sice CT Book 4
>high guard) had fighters, they have allways been a valid paltform for
>space navys. This shows
>that while they may have a better grasp of physics thanme, they ignore the
>fact that a lot of
>the traveller technolagy is based on items that dont excist, cant excist
>or shouldnt excist.

Well the problem with fighters is that they exist in "canon" and thus has
to stay. What people are arguing is finding a plausible reason for why they
do so that players can believe in the universe. The solution to the
Battlerider problem (why people would build battleriders) got nicely solved
with the jumptime variation so this is what our work is about. We find
something weird in the Traveller universe and either get rid of it saying
it doesn't exist (HEPLAR in my Universe) or come up with a reason for why
they exist thus making a more consistent game world for our players to
enjoy.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:49:36 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Norris

>I would assume Norris was gay because he liked men "that way" and did
>not like women "that way" :)

Another question: What about prostitution in Traveller. The generic
startown seems full of brothels etc but do the other races also pay for
sexual services? Also do Vargr have specific periods when they are in heat
or are they like humans more or less year round fertile and willing?


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:53:33 +0200
From: Nicolas LEJEUNE <nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

Andrew Boulton  wrote:

>Computers evolve very quickly; I suspect our predictions of what things 
>will be like in 4000 years time will be about as accurate as the IBM 
>spokesman who, 40 years ago, said the world would never need more than 6 
>computers...

Of course! But the Erwin's question was not what will be in 3500 years from
now (which is a stupid question indeed) but what do we have to use in our
Traveller campaign. So we ALL have to make a choice. But this choice may be
different for each of us!


>- the idea of having 'a computer' will become meaningless. Everyone will 
>have access to a global net 24 hrs a day, wherever they are, through 
>something as small and common as a watch. Processing could take place on 
>the other side of the world.

I disagree. This is the mainframe view. Today, processing power (CPU) is so
cheap that every people can have one (or many). I've bought a computer 8
months ago, was it the CPU or the RAM the most expensive? No it was the
screen!. And the CPU prices are high because it's a near monopole of Intel
(I've bought a Cyrix). It could lower for the same rating.
30 years ago, the rare ressource was processing. Now it's information!
Today's networks are not built for exchange processing capacity but files
and data. Network computer are built on this concept, but they also
exchange executable codes.
So your example would be: You have a watch sized computer which is able to
access to the planetary network to get information and programms. 
BTW, if we imagine that NC (cpu+ram+io) would replace PC(cpu+ram+disk+io),
I'm sure that the terminology "file" and "program" would disapear as they
both become "data" collected from the network.


>- the idea of a 'user interface' will become meaningless. Speech and 
>handwriting recognition will be near enough 100% accurate, and the 
>(pseudo) AI will be smart enough to deal with things like, 'book me a 
>seat on the next shuttle to Tokyo', 'is there anything good on TV 
>tonight?', or 'open the pod bay doors'. Output will be projected onto 
>the nearest available screen (including your glasses - or better still, 
>directly onto your retina) or heard through a tiny speaker in an earring 
>(or implanted).

Sure, but THIS is a user interface. As Paul D. Owensby suggested, the
voice/ears cannot be used as only computer interface. As it is cheap and
easy to build (micro and speaker), it cannot be used in all cases. It's
perfect for "small amount data comuters" as lifts, hotel booking machines,
TV commands. But not for data reading or scientific (starships) computers.
Human people use their ears AND there eyes to memorise data. The visual
aspects would EVER exists.

I agree with you that the vocal recognition would be the easiest (user
friendly) way to control a computer. Imagine a office with 10 people
talking to their computer. I'm sure that their computer could handle the
sound corretly. But the people would get mad. I suggest a Lips reading
system. So you would just have to whisper. (Thanks to Neveron@aol.com for
the Lips reading system idea)


- -----------
Nicolas LEJEUNE
   Engineer, Paris, France
   Traveller (TNE), and WhiteWolf RPG
   Mailto:nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 10:58:31 +0200
From: Pablo Jaime Conill Querol <pconque@delta.cti.unav.es>
Subject: Live is Hard in Traveller.(task system & Reality...)

First of anything i present myself. I am PJ from Spain (i salutate Carlos
the Geonee maker), and i am sorry if my languaje is not good.
       
         About the task system i do not undestand why to change the MT task
system. Is is really good (i think), it works. Then, why we have to change
it?. I am going to use it (except some one proposses a better task system).
        Any comments?

        By the other way you people have been discussing about reality &
play value for a long time, and i dont understand were the problem is. There
is what i think:
        1) We are playing a Sci-Fi RPG. It means a future (does not matter
if it is Space Opera or Hard fiction) that needs a internal coherence (i do
not know if i wrote the right word). If what happens in your own Traveller
universe is coherent with itself (and whith the rules, cause if you are not
coherent whit the rules you use there is a problem) there is not any problem.
        2) We are playing a Sci-Fi RPG. It means there is Science (maybe it
is not discovered, but it need to be coherent with itself) and Ficcion
(cause of that we can travel aroun the Space, wear internal powered armors,
drive a grav vehicle and so on). The Science and the Ficcion are mixed one
with each other, and the two are mixed with the plot, providing hapyness in
a Coherent world.
        Any coments?

We will read. Live long and prosper.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -----
Pablo Jaime -PJ- Conill Querol

e-mail: pconque@cti.unav.es

When all your wishes are granted
many of your dreams will be destroyed.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -----

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:45:42 +0100
From: Andy Lilly <a.s.lilly@nortel.co.uk>
Subject: Starships

Neveron@aol.com commented, about Task Systems:
>
>You forgot:
>Get Real- 2D1000
>and 
>Mcgyver Doesn't Dare-Slap the player upside the head with "starships"

Ah, I knew there was something I could use that book for.

Andy :-)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 09:20:11 -0600
From: Eric Holmes <holmes_eric_t@lanl.gov>
Subject: Re:  Norris' Preferences

Could it really be that Norris _is_ asexual
and is a 'droid hisself??  Hmmm, leads me to believe
that reading between the lines is open to interpretation
and like any other plot device, useable to the referee's
desires.

Later!

Eric

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 09:24:46 -0600
From: Eric Holmes <holmes_eric_t@lanl.gov>
Subject: Re: H2 Storage

Hey guys!

Have we just witnessed a real live TL advancement?

Seems the need for such _large_ L-Hyd fuel tanks
went out the window!!!!!

Time to change QSDS/SSDS.

Eric

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 10:05:15 -0500
From: Paul Walker <tiger@goldinc.com>
Subject: April THUDDD

Rumors continue about the health of the mysterious Director Savant as yet
another text only press release was sent to the media today.  Again,
regarding the THUDDD competition.  The notice read...


"Please be reminded, fellow designers, that the THUDDD competition will be
ending at midnight Tuesday.  I will be attempting to post the entries on
Wednesday for you consideration and voting.  Thank you for your continuing
support of Quiptech Products."

It is unknown as yet whether there is any true illness involved in the
Director's lack of public appearances or if it is just a coincidence.

    Paul {tiger}
     tiger@goldinc.com
     http://www.goldinc.com/~tiger

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 10:05:13 -0500
From: Paul Walker <tiger@goldinc.com>
Subject: ATTENTION ATTENTION

Would the following people please get in touch with me!!!!

I have you listed for Bidding on items in the AUCTION and I have been
sending UPDATES to the email address listed below.  If I do not hear from
you by Wednesday the 16th, I will mark all items for which you have bid as
passed.  Please contact me ASAP!!!!

Andrew Akins               igor@netins.net
Marshall Bautista          bautista@micron.net
JD (AKA Twolf)             twolf@unix.tfs.net

Anyone who is able to get in contact with these folks, please let them know
that I am looking for them and trying to give them a fair chance at
responding to the counter bids before I close the AUCTION.

Thanks,

    Paul {tiger}
     tiger@goldinc.com
     http://www.goldinc.com/~tiger

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 08:24:36 -0700
From: Douglas McCorison <douglas@camax.com>
Subject: Strange Tech Levels (was Re: book request)

Kenneth Bearden wrote:
> I'd also like to see a discussion on worlds, like Pysadi in the
> Aramis subsector of the Spinward Marches, that is rated at a TL 4 but
> has a class C starport.
> 
> Is this like visiting a third world country for advanced Imperial
> citizens?  Does the starport keep track of starship cargoes using
> index cards and black boards?  Is cargo shipped to the starport using
> oxen and carts, or is a WWII era truck used?

Since my I'm doing "The Traveller Adventure" and my characters are right
now ON Pysadi, I thought I'd comment on this.  The way it's set up is
that the starport is a fenced compound of Imperial territory.  The rest
of the planet is a religious hierarchy.  It's not that thye don't KNOW
about tech 12-15, it's that they don't ALLOW it.  Characters caught with
hi-tech get in serious trouble....  Which is interesting for some of my
characters with TL15 skull implant comm systems.  :)  

Douglas

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 08:58:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>
Subject: Pigeons: The Academic Citation

  Well, here is the citation for the article on Pigeons as bomb-guidance
systems.  Any large university library would have this journal - if you
can't get it locally, try inter-library loan.

James H. Capshew, "Engineering Behavior: Project Pigeon, World War II, and
the Conditioning of B. F. Skinner," _Technology and Culture_, V. 34, n. 4
(1993), p. 835-57.


  A few additional facts:  Skinner's initial research was funded by
General Mills, which had heard about Skinner's work through another
proposal by another researcher to guide torpedoes using dogs listening to
sound signals (this other project was apparently not funded).  The final
version of Skinner's system used three pigeons for redundancy.  They
pecked at a simple plastic screen at the front of the bomb, which
activated air valves that steered flaps to change direction.
Skinner blamed the cancelation of the project on a film he showed the
funding committee, where he left the top off the box with the pigeon - the
pecking made the committee laugh, and so led to to the project's rejection
as silly and fantastic.

______________________________
Dr. Mark Clark
Oregon Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 18:55:25 +0200
From: Carlos Alos-Ferrer <alos@merlin.fae.ua.es>
Subject: First Survey and B pop worlds

	The population of Corridor, accordinf to FS, is more than twice that of
Vland. Well, it's not surprising, since there is a world with 800 thousand
million inhabitants (800 billion for you in the US). The whole sector has
just 1,113 thousand million. There are 400 thousand million in a world of
Lishun, 500 thousand million in one of Dagudashaag, 400 thousand million in
one of Massilia, one with 800 thousand million in Vland... these FIVE worlds
hold at least 2,900 thousand million inhabitants. But the 9 sectors of FS
hold around 10,200 thousand million sentients. that is, five worlds hold
almost one third of the population of nine sectors. GULPS!
	I thought Pop B could not be generated by the rules... so, this has to be
delliberate. The problem is, these figures would change the dynamics of the
Traveller universe too much for me. I hope they are all typos...
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Alos-Ferrer                          E-mail: Alos@merlin.fae.ua.es
Dpt. Fundamentos del Analisis Economico     Phn: (34) 6 5903400, Ext. 3226
Universidad de Alicante                     Fax: (34) 6 5903685
03071-Alicante (Spain)                      "Thursuth gha kvaekh?"
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 18:54:34 +0200
From: Carlos Alos-Ferrer <alos@merlin.fae.ua.es>
Subject: First Survey and the Tech Level of Vland

	Despite the increasing evidence against the coherence of First Survey,
until today I still had some hope of using the data there. Until today.

	Well, I changed my mind after looking at the Tech Levels of Vland Sector.
The summary says "The average tech level in the sector is 0 (ZERO) (most lie
between 0 and 0)"... what a funny typo, I thought... unfortunately, its
worse than that.

	The Vland sector is full of TL 0 (ZERO) worlds. Dozens and dozens of them.
The problem is that those worlds are not barren, and have no X starports.
Take a look, for instance, at the Answerin homeworld:

0431 Answerin    B-5848BB-0

	How can we have a world with 500 million inhabitants and a B starport, at
TL 0? According to the CT/MT/T4 rules, that B starport gives a DM of +4 for
rooling TL, that should be 1D+4, i.e. some number between 5 and 10.
Certainly, not zero. some more examples:

0232 Shimshirar  E9C7755-0  Fl
0637 Bood          A240100-0   Po De Lo
0740 Kirov           B683644-0   Ni Ri
0801 Diir             E62A788-0   Wa
1313  Aadas        C778666-0   Ag Ni
1437  Igikuuni       B797755-0   Ag

	I could go on with dozens of examples like this... Igikuuni should have a
DM of +6, implying a TL between 7 and 12.

	The problem seems to be specific of Vland sector. In Massilia sector, there
is not even a single one TL 0 world (in fact, there is the opposite problem:
how comes dozens of Barren worlds have high TLs?) In other sectors, there
are a few TL 0 worlds that should be a bit more advanced, like Arkauummesh
(Antares 1132, E-694555-0 Ag Ni). There are at least 4 cases in Antares and
two in Gushemege. But in Vland, there around 60 (SIXTY) non-barren, non
LowPop, TL 0 worlds.

	In case the data gets fixed, I hope that everything gets checked, not only
the Law=Gob mistake.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Alos-Ferrer                          E-mail: Alos@merlin.fae.ua.es
Dpt. Fundamentos del Analisis Economico     Phn: (34) 6 5903400, Ext. 3226
Universidad de Alicante                     Fax: (34) 6 5903685
03071-Alicante (Spain)                      "Thursuth gha kvaekh?"
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 18:49:53 +0200
From: Carlos Alos-Ferrer <alos@merlin.fae.ua.es>
Subject: History of the Geonee, Part 4

        Well, Scott has started talking of my ideas about the Geonee in M:0
before I had the chance of presenting them here ;-), but, at last, here it
is, the 4th installment of the History of the Geonee, featuring the Long
Night, the birth of ADRAT, and the first contact with the Syleans...

================================================================================
The Long Night

	The year -1,776 is usually taken as the starting point of the economic
collapse of the Rule of Man and the Long Night. The Solomani were not able
to maintain an empire of more than 10,000 worlds, and the economic recession
destroyed what they had conquered.
	The Geonee Autonomous Region managed to maintain interstellar trade for
some centuries, but its volume diminished steadily until the worlds were all
but isolated. The Region had been too much integrated into the Second
Imperium to be able to construct a viable interstellar economy alone.
	Only three of the eight original worlds survived the Long Night: Shiwonee
(1430), Hiponee (1027), and Lagna (1025). These three worlds fell all the
way from TL 12 to TL 5, although Lagna retained some more advanced,
specialized knowledge in environmental control and food processing which
allowed its population to maintain pressure-dome cities and to survive in
the vacuum atmosphere of the world.
	But, once the three worlds were at a locally sustainable tech level,
progress started again. The Geonee felt they had lost the stars again, but
it was not the first time after all.
	Around year -400, Shiwonee was at TL 9, with a high population. The Meeralo
Council, once again coordinating planetary affairs, started two different
programs to relieve population pressures. The first was centered on orbital
settlements: the first orbital city was constructed -410, and many more
followed.
	The second was more ambitious, and involved the use of weather control to
make extensive regions of Shiwonee inhabitable regardless of the particular
moment of the climatic cycle. This program started in -320.
	Both programs were so successful that all population control measures were
abandoned. The population growth was exponential, and Shiwonee promptly
exceeded the 10,000 millions figure.
	In -250, the three surviving Geonee worlds were able to launch space
expeditions once again. Re-contact occurred soon. Shiwonee even established
a small base in Prindee (1330). The Long Night was gone.

The Second Confederation

	In -190, representatives of Hiponee, Lagna, and the different nations of
Shiwonee, met at Prindee and declared the Second Confederation. Its declared
goal was "to claim the stars again".
	The Confederation was born as an agreement between the different dominant
classes of the three worlds: the high-ranking bureaucrats of Hiponee, the
industrial supporters of the dictatorship of Lagna, and the members of the
Meeralo Council and different national leaders of Shiwonee. So, it was
natural that in the early stages, all these classes agreed to recognize each
other in equal terms and establish a "nobility" system. The Confederation
issued noble titles to the most powerful families of the member worlds, and
it is precisely this nobility who has ruled the Confederation until
nowadays, through their legislative body, known as the Assembly. All noble
families held a seat in the Assembly, and the more powerful held several.
The Meeralo Council was granted 18 seats in the Assembly, one per member, in
recognition of its key role in the Geonee history.
	In -180, the Confederation started a program to "claim back" all the former
Geonee worlds. The empty worlds in the Stenardee cluster were surveyed, and
small colonies were built.
	In these worlds, the remnants of the former inhabitants were found,
including relic technology from the Rule of Man. Moreover, when star travel
became frequent, whole starships were found in some asteroid belts.

ADRAT

	In year -175, the Confederation sponsored an association whose goals were
to coordinate technical research and the retrieval of relic technology. This
organization was called ADRAT: Association for the Development and Retrieval
of Advanced Technology. This organization was also charged with the
management of all technical schools in the Geonee worlds. Moreover, as soon
as the Geonee scouts recontacted new worlds in Massilia, ADRAT bases
including technical schools were established.
	ADRAT soon assumed the coordination of exploration and trade outside the
boundaries of the Confederation. Its bases consisted, in addition to the
technical schools, of both scout and merchant facilities. But the retrieval
aspect was never forgotten, and its scope soon exceeded the Rule of Man
relics. In Shem (1535), ADRAT constructed a base whose only goal was the
study an Ancient Site. Shortly after that, the Confederation put all Ancient
sites in its worlds under the direct authority of ADRAT.

Contact: Syleans

	In year -150, advanced scouts from the Sylean Federation meet the Geonee.
The Syleans were too far away for trade between the two interstellar states
to be profitable, but cultural and technical exchange was fruitful.
	Sylea had retained a small Geonee population through the Long Night, and
the initial stages of contact were smoothed by this fact. In year -95, a
Geonee Embassy and ADRAT office at Sylea, and a Sylean Consulate at
Shiwonee, were established.
	For the following decades, the Geonee Confederation was an almost
obligatory stop for the long-range Sylean scouts and traders. In fact, some
Sylean Megacorporations signed specific accordments with ADRAT regarding
trade in the coreward subsectors of Massilia.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Alos-Ferrer                          E-mail: Alos@merlin.fae.ua.es
Dpt. Fundamentos del Analisis Economico     Phn: (34) 6 5903400, Ext. 3226
Universidad de Alicante                     Fax: (34) 6 5903685
03071-Alicante (Spain)                      "Thursuth gha kvaekh?"
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 18:52:37 +0200
From: Carlos Alos-Ferrer <alos@merlin.fae.ua.es>
Subject: History of the Geonee, Part 5

        This post ends an article on the history of the Geonee from Ancient
Times to Milieu Zero. People interested in M:0 campaigns should stop here.
Future posts will be the part of a M:1100 article featurins the history of
the Geonee in the Third Imperium.
        Comments are extremely welcome.
================================================================================
The Expansionist Temptation

	Around year -100, Shiwonee, then at TL 11, had a very high population, in
excess of 30,000 millions (two thirds of which lived either in orbital
cities or in regions with TL 12 weather control). The other two founders of
the confederation were far from those figures: Lagna (fully at TL 12) had
only around 100 million, and the Hiponee population hardly exceeded two
millions. But the power structures did not reflect this sharp contrast. The
composition of the Assembly did not give even simple majority to the
Shiwonee representatives.
	The Second Confederation was initially focused on technical advancement,
exploration, and trade. But part of the noble families, notoriously those
vinculated to the Lagna dictatorship, were more inclined to transform the
Confederation into an interstellar empire. After year -100, those noble
families gained influence, and the Confederation politics changed accordingly.
	In year -85, the Confederation assumed as a goal to bring under its rule
all the former territory of the Geonee Autonomous Region. This included with
Kiimda (1328), Diuuk (1428) and Llyrn (0931).
	Llyrn, home of a minor alien race, had a high population at the moment and
was not convinced to join the Confederation. Nevertheless, there was a long
tradition of friendly relations with the Geonee, and the Llyrnians slowly
became a Client State. In -81, a Confederation Embassy was established at
Llyrn, and, in year -73, a detailed commercial treaty was signed.
	Meanwhile, Kiimda had a low population of colonists and Diuuk was home only
to a few hundreds of thousands of inhabitants. Both planets were militarily
occupied in -78.
	In -62, Zuuni (1133) was starting to become a commercial rival to the
Confederation. After a hot, secret debate, the Lagna dictator, Count
Ger-Ganaal, imposed his views and the Geonee navy was dispatched to raid the
world. Some noble families from Hiponee, lead by Marquis Riweega, where so
outraged that their representatives to the Confederation left their seats.
	In -48, the conquered colony of Kiimda was given a specific role. Its
starport was upgraded, and many civilian TL 12 shipyards from Lagna and
Shiwonee were moved there. Nevertheless, the military shipyards were instead
concentrated at Rigaal (0928). 
	On the external side, diplomatic efforts were made to bring Geonee worlds
or communities outside the Confederation closer to its interests. The ADRAT
bases in Forquee (1719) and Parahee (2934) were complemented with full
Confederation Embassies.
	In Forquee, the population was of three origins: Vilani, Solomani, and
Geonee. A Solomani-managed bureaucracy had managed to counterbalance the
Vilani efficiency and the Geonee technical capability throughout the Long
Night. The world turbulent past was all but forgotten, and there was no
belligerence between the three different races. In fact, a significant part
of the population had already mixed origins. The Confederation attempts were
well-received, but the world was not a Geonee one.
	In Parahee, the traditional door to Delphi sector, the situation was
different: a number of nations had managed to survive through the Long
Night, including a traditional Geonee society and a pure-Vilani corporation.
The Confederation ambassador supported an armed escalation of the Geonee
against the Vilani, and a limited war erupted, only to end after a few years
with no decisive victory for either side.

The Hiponee Civil War

	Meanwhile, some noble families of Hiponee, close to Count Ger-Ganaal, had
been transforming the bureaucratic government of their world into an
oligarchic, more oppressive system. In year -45, Marquis Riweega opposed the
designation of a cousin of Count Ger-Ganaal as new Economy Minister for
Hiponee. When his followers started a peaceful demonstration in Hiponee's
capital, the police violently repressed them. Marquis Riweega ordered their
personal guard to shoot back at the police. In a few weeks, the incident
evolved into a full-fledged civil war.
	In the course of the year, the vast majority of the population of Hiponee
sided with Marquis Riweega. The world's government called the Confederation
for help, and Count Ger-Ganaal sent in large contingents of troops from
Lagna, along with some non-Geonee mercenaries. The civilians resisted and
organized themselves. Count Ger-Ganaal asked the Confederation to authorize
the Navy to make orbital bombardments of the rebel cities, but the
representatives of the Meeralo Council invoked a clause of the Confederation
proclamation that forbade any armed action of the Confederation Navy against
a member world.
	The war lasted for three years, and ended with the capture and public
execution of Marquis Riweega. The world population had been decimated and
its cities were totally ruined. The Meeralo Council proposed a civil
reconstruction program, but Count Ger-Ganaal had the loyalty of the winning
military forces and refused the plan. After a long debate, he forced a
drastic set of measures to avoid any possibility of a new rebellion.
	The garden world of Hiponee was declared "reserved" to the nobility and
divided into private states. The surviving population, which numbered less
than one million, was forced to migrate to the unpleasant neighboring world
of Dreva (1028). The planet industries were moved to Kiimda (1328), a jump-3
from Hiponee.

Sylean involvement

	Count Ger-Ganaal continued to influence the politics of the Confederation.
In year -38, a new military campaign ended with the conquest of the
low-population water world of Shirarermi (1630), and of the rich world of
Niikishi (1629), with a population of almost two millions.
	Kiimda continued to fulfill its role as the industrial backyard of the
Confederation: in -37, several heavy pollutant industries from Shiwonee
where moved there.
	Meanwhile, the Sylean presence in the Massilia sector had been steadily
growing. Some long-term analysts (among them the economic advisor for Grand
Duke Felix Zhunastu) had decided that, given the wide presence of Geonee
bases (mainly from ADRAT) in the Massilia sector, if the Confederation
continued to be an expansionist power, it could eventually grow into an
interstellar, sector-wide empire which would become a serious threat for the
Sylean interests. This potential threat was even more serious given the fact
that the Confederation was on the cutting edge of technology: Shiwonee was a
TL 12 world, and Lagna was even more advanced in some fields.
	Although the Sylean Federation denied all possible involvement, it seems
proved that, in year -34, either some Sylean megacorporation, either the
Sylean Federation itself, helped economically the rebel underworld at Diuuk
(1428). The rebellion was successful, in part thanks to the fact that most
of the Geonee troops were stranded in Niikishi.
	The independence of Diuuk came as a hard strike against Count Ger-Ganaal
imperial dream. He lost most of his support at the Assembly and the
Confederation ordered the end of the occupation of Niikishi and Shirarermi.
Huge contingents of troops were transferred to Kiimda in order to protect
the industrial facilities against any possible external attack.
	When the Sylean involvement was discovered, the Sylean Consul was expelled
from Shiwonee, and several Sylean merchants were imprisoned. A Sylean
Consulate was immediately opened at Diuuk, and an official protest was
issued to the Confederation
	One year after the Diuuk Rebellion, Count Ger-Ganaal died in an unexplained
accident when his personal starship took off Shiwonee's orbital starport.
His son Ar-Ganaal inherited the title but lacked the personal charisma and
wide support of his father. The Confederation abandoned the imperial dream.
	After three years of negotiations and diplomatic maneuvers, formal
relations were re-established with the Sylean Federation. In year -30, a
Free Trade Accordment was signed, and a full Sylean Embassy was set up at
Shiwonee.

The Third Imperium

	In year 0, Grand Duke Cleon Zhunastu of Sylea transformed the Sylean
Federation into the Third Imperium. Vland and the Vilani core worlds joined
almost immediately.
	The Sylean Ambassador, Baron Mazun von Traianus, formally asked the Geonee
Confederation to join the Third Imperium, but the Assembly refused. Some
radical voices claimed that the Geonee worlds would never again be under the
same rule that Vland.
	The situation was made worse when, in year 3, Diuuk announced its will to
join the Third Imperium, despite the fact that there were almost no imperial
worlds in the whole Massilia sector. Ambassador Traianus guaranteed that no
Sylean commercial facilities were going to be moved to Diuuk from the Geonee
Confederation.
	Since then, the Geonee Confederation has had peaceful (but not always
friendly) relations with the Third Imperium. Although commercial conflicts
have been common, and even some minor military skirmishes have occurred,
today it seems that the Third Imperium is willing to respect the
Confederation's independence, and the Confederation has no interest in
becoming a military or political power outside its current boundaries.
	Many worlds with ADRAT bases are now members of the Imperium, and thus
ADRAT is becoming more and more involved with imperial politics. In fact,
the recent establishment of Imperial Scout Deep Bases at Shem (1535) and
Parahee (2934) has counted with the collaboration of ADRAT.
	Geonee traders travel through both imperial and non-imperial space, and, as
the Imperium is opening new markets each year, they benefit from it as much
as any imperial citizen.
	Moreover, one should not forget the significant numbers of Geonee that are
already imperial citizens, none of which has forgotten his origins, and that
are helping to bridge the gap between the Imperium and the Confederation.
	Some Imperial megacorporations have shown a definite interest into the
Confederation technology, some of whose achievements are well above the
Imperium average. Shiwonee is a TL 12 world, but the heavy industries
located at Kiimda have already reached TL 13. Thanks to ADRAT, Lagna has
reached an impressive TL 14 in the last years (space transportation not
included), although its economy is not capable of mass-producing items for
exportation.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Alos-Ferrer                          E-mail: Alos@merlin.fae.ua.es
Dpt. Fundamentos del Analisis Economico     Phn: (34) 6 5903400, Ext. 3226
Universidad de Alicante                     Fax: (34) 6 5903685
03071-Alicante (Spain)                      "Thursuth gha kvaekh?"
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:08:04 -0400
From: Douglas N Sinclair <sinclai@ecf.toronto.edu>
Subject: No Intel's in space?

I must take issue with your statement that there are no Intel CPUs in
satellites or space probes.  Off the top of my head:
80386 in Hubble Space Telescope
8086 in Mars Global Surveyor
80C85 in Mars Pathfinder
80186 in Joint Control Unit of the space station arm
80486 in Space Shuttle Payload General Support Computer

Doug Sinclair
5 exams and 16 days away from being a spacecraft engineer

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 16:26:53 +0100
From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Ship cooling mechanisms

I want realistic SF.  I believe in Stefan's Law and conservation of 
energy.  I also quite like the idea that Traveller starships aren't 
so trivial to detect.  I'd like to stick as close to canon as I can.

I don't want to join the heat war (like a flame war but milder?) but 
here's one example of the sort of thing that might be invented, using 
exisiting ideas.

OK, here's the (so-called) logic:

i) Thruster plates are a device which use gravitational forces to 
power a ship.

ii) Thruster plates emit high-energy photons (and other gunk by way 
of particles?) in operation.

iii) Hence there exists a (fairly) canonical link between gravity and
EM radiation, as well as the general ability to apply energy to 
gravity which is implied by contragrav.

iv) Fusion powerplants use gravitic confinement (the explanation for 
why Earth took so long to get it to work; kept mucking around with EM 
fields instead).  This is MT canon, for sure, tho' it probably breaks 
T4 since grav focussing for lasers is TL13 there.

This is where one speculates:

v) There exists a gravitic cooling effect which bleeds waste heat 
into fairly small, incoherent gravity "noise", which can of course be 
detected by densitometers.  It works for all EM radiation, of course,
and is probably best for "harder" radiation given the very energetic 
photons associated with the thruster plates.  Effect: waste energy is 
sufficient to keep the ship at ambient temp. (call it 300K).

vi) Not all the ship needs to be at 300K; the fuel tanks (which will 
be on the outside) can or should be kept cooler.  In effect, the 300K 
core of the ship (small surface) radiates via fuel tanks (larger 
surface area) which will help keep the surface temperature down a bit 
- -- while the tanks are full, anyway.

vii) Dark surfaces will help the ship cool more evenly and more 
quickly -- thus reducing the temperature at which the ship is in 
equilibrium with 3K space a bit (not much).

Even given all this, ships will be thermally bright, just a bit less 
so.  Hardly matters anyway if they're using HEPlaR -- the secondary 
emissions from the plasma will be very visible.

What other implications has gravitic cooling?  Can you use it as 
shields to defend against lasers?  Well, not easily -- the gravity 
stresses required to attenuate a coherent beam would rip apart any 
device which generated them, or any structure carrying it.  Maybe the 
black globe is a related product, tho'.  It might be a good way to 
protect ships from harmful solar radiation, though.

I knew there had to be a good explanation for all those contra-grav 
plates on ship hulls 8-).

Nick

P.S. What the high detectability of ships leads to is a situation 
where detection range >> combat range.  (I have some doubts about the 
effectiveness of lasers and particle weapons at the very long ranges 
given in T4, anyway.)  This is similar to the age of fighting sail,
where one could see ships from the masthead long before they were in
cannon range.  

Patrick O'Brien fans on TML, use your imagination.

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1190
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest       Monday, April 14 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1191



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)
Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing
IR Masking - tech problem
Re: IR Masking
Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing
Re: Imperial Yacht
Re:  Earth approach (was: Re: IR Missiles)
Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing
Re: Are CG lifters in CSC broken?
Re: First Survey and the Tech Level of Vland
WIZARDS OF THE COAST TO ACQUIRE TSR INC.
Fighters II....
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Emperor's Arsenal
Re: Ship cooling mechanisms
Re: [TML] Backmans partial space combat system
Re: History of the Geonee, Part 5
Re: Strange Tech Levels (was Re: book request)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:57:07 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

Quoth Andrew Boulton:
> << But in a lecture hall or other conversational area, where I'm trying to
> listen and record the heard information, I don't want to have to use my
> own vocal apparatus to do it.  Too much opportunity for confusion, loss
> of information, etc.  Keyboarding or handwriting has got to be available. 
> 
> The computer hears the speech you're listening to, same as you.

Great, if all I want is a transcription.  I'll even admit than intelligent
enough software might be able to pull out relevant bits of the speech
later, making detailed summary note-taking irrelevant.

But what if I'm a professional listening to a lecture on, say, new
technology, ways of doings things, new theories, what have you, the sort
of thing likely to spark lots of independent ideas in my own head?  Unless
we're postulating telephathic computers, it's _not_ going to pick up on
those, and I will darn well want to strike while the iron is hot and get
those ideas down in some sort of permanent form for later review.  I don't
want to have to say them, lest I distract others (or allow them to steal
my concepts!), and, again, I don't want to use my own respiratory tract
lest I interfere with my own listening.  So how do I note down my
inspirations?

Basically, our ideal computer technology has to handle a multitude of
teaching, note-taking, and learning styles.  I'm not denying that any of
it sounds great, just that it needs more flexibility.

- ----------------------------*------------------------*------------------------
 Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett  |"Nullum magnum ingenium | GURPS fan, Amiga user,
http://www.io.com/~jlockett | sine mixtura dementiae | Shakespearean scholar,
  Email: jlockett@io.com    | fuit." -- Seneca       | actor and director.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:59:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

Quoth Rupert Boleyn:
> It's not minaturization to that level that I was refering, it's things like
> tiny cellphones that have keypads too small for anyone with bigger than
> average finger to use easily (me).

Obviously, you need to order the Virushi model instead.  :-)

- ----------------------------*------------------------*------------------------
 Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett  |"Nullum magnum ingenium | GURPS fan, Amiga user,
http://www.io.com/~jlockett | sine mixtura dementiae | Shakespearean scholar,
  Email: jlockett@io.com    | fuit." -- Seneca       | actor and director.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 10:15:53 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)

On Sat, 12 Apr 1997, Mike Sellers wrote:
> 
> I think you were probably joking, but I wasn't.  I recall seeing an
> analysis of the code written for these computers (in assembler, by IBM).
> The cost came out to just a little bit more than $1M per line of code in
> the finished product.

Yet about the ONLY shuttle subsystem that the committee
investigating the Challenger explosion singled out as done well was the
software.

"Surely, You're Joking, Mr. Feynmann" or maybe the sequel "What do YOU
care what other people think?" has the story, as well as the original
unedited appendix that Dr. Feynmann wrote dissenting from the conclusions
of the main committee.

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 10:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing

> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 10:51:12 -0400
> From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
> 
> >First off, I object to the assertion that players who find and exploit
> >unintended consequences of new tech/physics are "intentionally breaking
> >the game," or that this behavior is confined to rules-lawyering munchkins.
> 
> [snip of very good example of "ruining" a game]
> 
> I agree with you that this is a wonderful act of creativity on the part of the
> player, and should be rewarded. But all the examples/complaints up to this
> have been of the "Well, if we allow that my players will use it to create 
> perpetual motion machines/super weapons/fighters that can beat capital
> ships" <g> and I call that munchkineering IMHO.

Thanks for the kind words...and I was trying to show that honest, 'real'
role-players could be hurt by hand-waved physics, not *just* munchkins.
Any plot hole a real role-player can wander into all unawares, a dedicated
munchkin can find and exploit intentionally. :)

> >All this from one casually hand-waved, seemingly harmless and irrelevant
> >piece of technology.  Almost *any* change to the background can cause
> >scenarios like this.  And notice that this is not munchkin behavior; I'd
> >call the player creativity above very good role-playing.
> 
> But this happens all the time, anyway! A good 75% of the sessions I run go
> into "GM hell" sooner or later due to the actions of some very intelligent 
> and creative players of mine. And that's with the *standard* rules. I seriously
> cannot see the addition of a "physics breaker" rule changing the percentage
> of games that they "break" through creativity.

My experience is that handwaved physics and technology *do* break
scenarios more often, and more seriously, than simple player creativity
within 'canon' background.  Larry Niven created an indestructible
spacecraft hull for his story "Neutron Star", in the Known Space universe.
He later wrote that he cursed the day he did that, as *every single KS
story* after that had to answer the question "How come an indestructible
hull won't solve this problem?"  The same thing happens in RPGs.  The more
items of tech and physics you drop into your scenarios, the harder you
have to work to make future scenarios not "crackable" using these
technologies.  Another example from SF is Star Trek's transporter.  It was
handwaved into existence in order to avoid the necessity of time-consuming
"shuttle down to planet" sequences in every episode.  And look how many
credence-straining handwaves the writers have had to engage in, for 30
years, to explain why the imperiled crew members on Planet Foobar couldn't
be beamed to safety.

In short:  Handwaved physics and tech constrains your scenarios, and
litters the dramatic landscape with consistency landmines. :)

> And as for your (good} example,
> how is this any different from the 
> (fairly) recent account of a game someone (sorry if I forgot who) was 
> running where he had a nice scenario much like yours w/ low-TL sentient
> geneered rats, and one of the characters quite unexpectedly committed 
> mass xenocide with the ship's laser? 

With groups I've played with, "kill 'em all and let's leave this
godforsaken rockball" is *always* a possible course of action.  I'd have
seen this possibility and made it somehow unuseable -- or perhaps not, and
let the players live with all those murders on their consciences.  But it
*was* predictable as a potential course of action a priori.

> I CAN'T prepare for every contingency using standard rules and equipment,
> does this mean we have to be stagnant little Villani then and never try any-
> thing new (realistic or not) because we are afraid our players might come
> up with some new ideas that we hadn't thought of? 

"Stagnant little Vilani" -- I *like* that! :)  And no, that's not what I'm
saying at all.  I'm merely suggesting that GMs be cautious about ad lib
physics and tech, never using them without thinking through the
consequences for the rest of the background, and being aware that they'll
never ever think of *everything* a priori.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 09:39:51 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: IR Masking - tech problem

Masking that just reduces emissions is fine.  There are some problems with
reducing the hull to 3K, but it is at least feasible.

Active masking, as in the following letter has a problem.

>Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 16:53:30 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Christopher Russell <russcm@zoomnet.net>

>I heard recently information on how reaserch into sound waves has produced
>technology that can deaden sound by transmitting an inverse of the wave.
>Now, taking some assuptions from what I know of physics, I have a theory
>on a way to mask IR.

Sound masking works pretty well, actually.  My girlfriend has a pair of
noise cancelling headphones that cuts the high frequencies quite decently.

>1) Infrared is an electromagnetic emission.

Yep.

>2) Electromagnetic energy has properties of a wave.

Yep.

>3) Waves can be dampened by transmitting an inverse of the wave into the
>wave.

Yep.


>So, if a ship can sense, perhaps with sensors along it's hull, it's own
>emissions, then it can transmit an inverse of the wave, perhaps with
>something similar to a radio transmitter, since radio is a type of EM
>emission, set to emit in the IR wavelength. This would be very difficult
>to get perfect, so it would only dampen the emission, not eliminate it.

Your suggestion would work fine, save that one word - sense.

You have to sense the exact wave being transmitted.  Knowing that it is
radiating at 200K is not enough - you also need to know exactly _what_ it
is radiating.  The temperature will tell you roughly what you can expect,
but to mask it, you need the exact opposite.

Once you have sent it, you need to invert the signal and send it out.
Doing so would be non trivial, but possible, save for one problem.  The
time it takes to flip the wave and generate it means that your signal will
be late.  It will not mask the source.  With sound, we can use a light
speed signal to tell the inverter and speaker what to say.

If you posit some kind of short distance FTL transmission, then it could
work, but imagine what a clever player could do with that.  My bet is that
you would be better off with that than an energy sump or black box, but I
am open to discussion.

My personal favorite is something that is a fragile heat barrier.  It can
handle small heating quite well, but degrades at anything over the
temperature of a candle flame; like a high tech oven mitt.  This is why it
is not good for reflec, and you still have to cool the ship down to perhaps
100K for it to do a decent enough job, but it is good for dramatic effect.

It dramatically increases the load on a ship's coolers, and it cannot last
for long.  It does, however, mean that you can limit radiation to the
radiator fins and heat sumps of your vessels for some time.  For a big.
powerful ship, a pretty short time, and for a small ship with minimal
heating, a fairly long one.  Still not a cloak.

>This, in theory, is how EMM would work in Milenu 0. This also may be the
>founding principle on cloaking.

FWIW, I have masking being done by careful attention to which direction a
ship can be detected from, careful radiator placement, and reduced
emissions.  I also assume that a black globe is just plain magic.  It has
some obvious problems, and if the technology was understood well enough,
you could probably do all sorts of things, but all black globes (in my
world) are imperfect copies of 200Kyr old ones.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 10:36:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: IR Masking

> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 02:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>
> Subject: Re: IR Masking
> 
>   I've noticed that the arguements about ship detecting center on how
> objects in space are going to be at about 300K.  Struck me that that is a
> steady-state proposition - while an object will eventually reach that
> state, if it is hotter or cooler it will take some time to reach
> equilibrium temperature.
> 
>   Hence, the "Popsicle" series of stealthy missiles from Generica
> Industries.  You just keep them in the freezer until use, and then send
> them on their way at a nice temp that matches the background temp of the
> universe.  Just the chance to say "Time for a party - get another six-pack
> out of the fridge!" in character would be worth it.

I'm pretty sure that they'd come up to 300 K fast enough to make this
not all that useful -- but damn it, that's such a great image I say we
ignore thermodynamics and go with it! :)

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 10:39:01 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing

On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, James Lindsay wrote:
> 
> This doesn't answer the question regarding whether or not it is
> possible to do what this player suggested; it only ignores the issue.
> You're going to need an answer the next time the players attempt to
> perform the same task.
> 
> 

That's why they pay the GM's the big bucks...this is SOP for a GM's life.
Unless you play with a bunch of dumb robots, you've got usually what...4
to 7 bright, inquisitive minds grinding away at the clever puzzles you
create for them.

I had a D&D party invent close air support one time (flying carpet loaded
with rocks, guided by a flying creature does barrel roll at speed over the
enemy waiting to ambush them in the pass).

	A GM needs to keep a well annotated, Official Bent Rules notebook
to document any given campaign, because no one can keep up with all the
weird things in their head.

Speaking 'bout weird things...I came home on Friday to be greeted by my
wife exclaiming she'd seen an anti-gravity frog on CNN. It involves very
high magnetic fields, but damned if it wasn't a live frog floating in the
air....


Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 10:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Imperial Yacht

Mark Clark writes:
[Imperial Yacht design snipped]
>   Again, I am interested in comments - hope you find this ship useful in
> your game.

Very nice work!  I agree, Cleon I needs an appropriately impressive state
vessel, and the Brittania makes a good model.  I'm not sure about pressing
random crewmembers into steward duty, however...one would imagine that
serving royalty and honored guests of like rank would be *very* touchy
business, and that a misplaced salad fork might lead to ruined diplomatic
relations and perhaps open warfare.  I'm not sure I want the assistant
jump tech laying out the silverware. :)

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:52:42 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re:  Earth approach (was: Re: IR Missiles)

>It could approach from behind the moon. Once past the moon, it could be
>picked up by Norad radar, but if it is aware of that system, then it could
>come in from the south polar region. Even if the radar was a threat, with tl
>12+ tech, it could be easily jammed, and Norad would simply blame it on a
>solar flare.

But I think they'd get a bit suspicious unless there was an associated solar
flare that they could see. <g>

Of course, if they planned it to conincide with something like the recent 
flare that... hey, wait a minute....

**********************************************************
  Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
 CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:15:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing

> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 97 01:52:29 -0500
> From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
> 
[my scenario-killing use of handwaved tech snipped]
> > Result:  One wrecked scenario.  Your choices as GM?
> 
> > (1) Say 'no'.  This destroys the players' faith in your world, and hence
> >     the joy of the game.  It also reduces the players' confidence that you
> >     will reward clever solutions, a very bad trend in any game.
> 
> Yuk! Ptooie!  You should at least let them try, and describe the failure
> and the reason it failed...
[Eris' brilliant workaround snipped]

Of course, and that's just what I'd do...though not as well as you, sounds
like.  And as a one-off solution, it would work fine.  The problem is, if
you do this sort of thing too often, the players *will* start to see the
pattern that whenever they try something clever with game-universe physics
and technology, it blows up in their faces, or doesn't work for
far-fetched reasons.  And that *pattern* detracts from belief in the game
universe.

> > (2) Say 'yes'.  Your careful preparations are out the window.  
> 
> Yes! ;->  Turn those lemons into lemonaide!

Of course -- but if you litter your universe with *too* many ad-hoc
additions and handwaved pieces of background, you'll soon find you have
*no* (or damn little) control of where your scenarios go -- unless you
resort to de facto banning of all routes other than those you've prepared.

> > You either ad lib your way through an entirely unplanned adventure (GM hell), 
> 
> Oh come on!  Some of the best plots come out of having to ad lib.

Mine too, and those are the ones I like to remember.  Some of my most
embarrassingly horrible failures have come out of ad lib, too, though.
Every scenario without exception will involve *some* ad lib, of course;
I'd just prefer to keep the overall dramatic arc somewhere close to a
route I've done *some* thinking about, most of the time.

[Great ad-libbed scenario savers snipped]

> >     tell everybody to go home half an hour after the session started, so
> >     you can prepare the new paths.  This doesn't lead to happy players.
> 
> Heck! If you did that to me, Craig, I'd have a fit! ;->

OK, so I was exaggerating. :)

> BTW, how'd you like my ad libs? ;->

Wonderful.  I'd love to play in one of your games some time. :)

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 97 19:28 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Are CG lifters in CSC broken?

In-Reply-To: <199704121920.NAA12289@eagle.wbm.ca>

<< So... the density is 0.65 g/cm^3. Damn thing floats! Maybe it's 
broken in 
the other direction... >>

Of *course* it floats - it's contra-grav! :-)

    ---------=========oooooooooOOOOOOOOooooooooo=========---------
Andrew M J Boulton                  http://www.compulink.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 20:09:28 MET
From: "Volker A. Greimann" <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
Subject: Re: First Survey and the Tech Level of Vland

- ->     In case the data gets fixed, I hope that everything gets checked, not only
- -> the Law=Gob mistake.
Somehow i feel that the entire FS book is in it's entierety, a 
complete typo! I wonder how they are going to fix it, if everything 
in the book is faulty! Please, somebody wake me up! 

Ad Astra,

V.A.G.       
- ------  Volker A. Greimann, also known as: Grei5001@uni-trier.de  ----
- -- Am Weidengraben 86,C6 - 54296 Trier - Germany - T+F: +49651148846 -
- --- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/4061 ---
- ---- Student of Law, Gamer, Illuminatus Primus, Slayer of Windows95 --
- -----  "Don't hold me up: I am just barely ahead of insanity!!!" -----

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 97 19:28 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: WIZARDS OF THE COAST TO ACQUIRE TSR INC.

Just thought people might be interested...


WIZARDS OF THE COAST TO ACQUIRE TSR INC.

April 10, 1997 (Renton, Wash.) -- Wizards of the Coast Inc. and TSR
Inc., the two leaders of the adventure gaming industry, announced
today that a letter of intent has been signed by both parties for
Wizards of the Coast to acquire TSR Inc.  The transaction is expected
to be completed in May, 1997.

    ---------=========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: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 21:04:40 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Fighters II....

Merrick wrote:

>No, the BB vs. BB duel is like a pistol duel with bazookas.  One of
>the two ships *will* die---whoever gets hit first.

Wasn't it Frank Chadwick who described 2300AD space combat as 'hide and
seek with bazookas'?

- --------------- Dom Mooney (dom@cybergoths.u-net.com)---------------
"The fall of Empire, Gentlemen, is a massive thing, however, and not easily
fought. It is dictated by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a
freezing of caste, a damming of curiousity - a hundred other factors."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Hari Seldon - Azimov's "Foundation"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

Nicolas LEJEUNE <nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr> wrote:

>So _my_ opinion on computer ergonomy is
>* for simple device : pen on a notepad
>* for usual computer : eyeball movement detector (mouse) and Virtual one
>handed chord pad or lip reader (keyboard)

>Both are enhanced with vocal recognition of course. This recognition is
>effective enough to distinct different people as our ears do.
>And for the display I would say some kind of laser projector (holographic)
>in 2D or 3D. But not this $#&@% big screen we don't know where to put it.

Excellent ideas.  Also, for the ever-useful hand computer I would suggest
electrodes which pick up nerve signals and muscle contractions and
translate them into various commands.  The user of such a system would
need some training, but perhaps no more than learning to type. 

One of my gripes with cyberpunk is how unlikely some of it is.  While
hackers and spies might well get implanted neural jacks, Jane or John
clerk will not.  Someone will be designing interfaces for average folks,
and by 5700 AD I'd expect them to be pretty damn sophisticated (if for no
other reason than that humans will have been using computers for many
centuries, not 40-some years). 

Anyway, contact electrodes won't tire out your hands an can be done very
subtlely (great for high powered Vilani megacorp meetings, especially if
combined with a bone-conduction speaker for output).  For even more
versatility, maybe the computer could add in a choker or headband which
picked up the nerve signals associated with certain types of thought (and
possibly throat vibrations form subvocalization to with the choker).  Here
we have input at virtually the speed of (mildly trained) thought with no
neural jacks or other surgery.  The display can be on the users wrist, the
pickup on head or throat, and the CPU on wrist, or belt, all connected by
either IR wireless interfaces or the body electric field stuff they are
working on at MIT. 

In addition to using this for hand computers, the headband or choker alone
could also be standard equipment for daily life (well decorated and
stylish for the rich) which would automatically interface with most common
devices. Think advanced. 

My only question is whether there is a similarly nifty way to do visual
output? Audio output can be handled through a medium-sized earring with a
bone conduction speaker (on the back of the earring where it touches the
head. But I can see any) way to do visual output w/o screens or
holofields. 

As a final idea, how about personal secretaries much like the AI credit
card sized computer (named Velma?) in the dreadful show "Time Tracks". 
Turn the full AI into merely a well designed expect system and you could
have another nifty device for Traveller. 

Other comments or ideas?


- -John Snead jsnead@netcom.com  

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 15:01:05 -0400
From: Mark Urbin <eclipse@ultranet.com>
Subject: Emperor's Arsenal

Two things missing from EA that have a long Traveller history:

RAM grenades & Accelerator rifles.


- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
eclipse@ultranet.com http://www.ultranet.com/~eclipse/  Opinions Mine!
"For the quickest descent into the ethical quagmire, the Clinton 
 administration has set a new indoor record." 
         (Howard Kurtz column, The Washington Post, 3/26/95)
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:03:37 -0700
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: Ship cooling mechanisms

At 04:26 PM 4/14/97 +0100, Nick Munn wrote:
>P.S. What the high detectability of ships leads to is a situation 
>where detection range >> combat range.  (I have some doubts about the 
>effectiveness of lasers and particle weapons at the very long ranges 
>given in T4, anyway.)  This is similar to the age of fighting sail,
>where one could see ships from the masthead long before they were in
>cannon range.  
>
>Patrick O'Brien fans on TML, use your imagination.

Might there be gravitic "currents" in places where space is not flat --
that is, in-system?  The closer you get to a large gravitational mass, the
faster/broader/more turbulent these currents.  This could mean that
thrusters that depend on gravity might work better in some places than
others, or in some directions than others.  This could set you up for
age-of-sail-like maneuvering, where you try to get the "gravity gauge" on
your opponent.  Just a thought.

- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:33:46 -0700
From: Mark Bradley <MBradley@gwgate.swrcb.ca.gov>
Subject: Re: [TML] Backmans partial space combat system

< At 10:37 am 04/12/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Anybody interested in looking at it mail me for a copy (it's about 15K
>straight ascii) as I thought it was too big for mailing on the list
>directly.
>
I would like a copy of this too: mbradley@exec.swrcb.ca.gov

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:39:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com>
Subject: Re: History of the Geonee, Part 5

Excellent as usual, Carlos.  One question: have you detailed the minor-race
inhabitants of Llyrn yet?  I've seen mention of them several times so far
(including, IIRC, their renown among the Geonee as Marine troopers), but
no specific description.  Are they in the "to-be-detailed-later" stack or
are you just keeping secrets?  :-)

- ----------------------------*------------------------*------------------------
 Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett  |"Nullum magnum ingenium | GURPS fan, Amiga user,
http://www.io.com/~jlockett | sine mixtura dementiae | Shakespearean scholar,
  Email: jlockett@io.com    | fuit." -- Seneca       | actor and director.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:19:29 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Strange Tech Levels (was Re: book request)

> Kenneth Bearden wrote:

> Since my I'm doing "The Traveller Adventure" and my characters are right
> now ON Pysadi, I thought I'd comment on this.  The way it's set up is
> that the starport is a fenced compound of Imperial territory.  The rest
> of the planet is a religious hierarchy.  It's not that thye don't KNOW
> about tech 12-15, it's that they don't ALLOW it.  Characters caught with
> hi-tech get in serious trouble....  Which is interesting for some of my
> characters with TL15 skull implant comm systems.  :)  

What about when the computer goes down in the starport?  What about 
High Tech maintenance?  What about the infrastructure required for 
such a facility?

Do they send off planet when they need something?  And, looking at 
the map (and the surrounding TLs), when what they need arrives, does 
it come straight from Aramis?

That seems a long way from Pysadi.  But maybe the Pysadi starport is 
a large enough facility to be self contained--which is certainly 
possible.  It's just hard for me to buy given the remote location of 
Pysadi, its TL, and its low number of exports (the Pysadians worship 
Mother Pysadi.  I doubt they they export any amounts of minerals or 
ores.)

I'm not disagreeing with you here--just exploring options.

On the Pysadi that my characters are on, the starport is a mish-mash 
of technology.

I picture it like someone in the US visiting a third world country.  
Religion is strong.  There's people carrying goods to market in carts 
pulled by oxyen.  Telephones are primitive.

But since the planet has a tainted atmosphere, technology for sealing 
buildings and air recirculation is much more advanced than the 
average TL 4 planet.

Building materials are also advanced, given the TL, and whereas many 
TL 4 homes might not even have air conditioning on other worlds, all 
Pysadian structures are well built, sealed buildings with electronic 
air reprocessing units attached to them.


This twisting of TLs can also be seen in the starport.

The starport uses chalk boards, a PA, and index cards to keep track 
of cargoes, yet they have integrated the technology to provide power, 
L-Hyd fuel, and the other minimums that a Class C starport must 
provide.

You might post a hand written sign with a staple to a cork board 
soliciting freight business for your next destination, but a 
technician examing your jump drive for the cause of that warning 
light you spotted last trip is using a wheeled, self contained high 
tech diagnotic system for the job.

When I think about life on Pysadi, I usually assume that everything 
is in line with a TL 4 culture, but some things cannot be at TL 4, 
like I have suggested above.  These higher tech items have been 
imported at some point, and a minimum infrastructure has been set up 
to support them.

My characters are on a TL 4 world--it should be different from 
visiting a Class C starport on a TL A world.

And this is the type of thinking that I would like to see in that 
book.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1191
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest       Monday, April 14 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1192



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Brilliant Idea From Nick Munn
Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII
Re:  Earth approach (was: Re: IR Missiles)
Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)
Re: Storing H2
Re: Computer Tech
Re: Fighters revisted
Re: Conservation (was Re: IR masking)
Re: Earth approach (was: Re: IR Missiles)
Re: Low-tech space fighters
Re: Realism and gearheading
Re: Missiles+fighters II
Re: IR Masking
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15
Re: IR masking.
Re: IR masking.
Re: Realism vs. play value

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:59:35 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Brilliant Idea From Nick Munn

Nick Munn just e-mailed me in private with an idea for KBv2.0 that I 
think is just brilliant.

As many of you know, I've stated that the T4 xp system is broken, and 
that's the direction of my next project.

Nick's idea is probably half the answer of that problem.  

We're still going to have to come up with a good game 
mechanic for allowing character's to increase in skill level.  Nick's 
idea is the results part--after you've determined that a character 
has gone up, Nick has brilliantly laid out what benefit to a 
character this has.

I've got to say that seeing ideas like Nick's is one of the reasons I 
post KBv2.0 to the list--I certainly haven't been thinking in this 
direction.



What's this great idea, anyway?

After it has been determined that a character goes up in skill level 
(method for this to be determined), Nick has devised a simple method 
to increase the experience score.

Remember, the experience score in KBv2.0 is:

                    Experience Score = Skill Level x 3

And target numbers are calculated by:

                    Target Number = Attribute + Experience Score



Nick's idea is simple, but it can get confusing stating it.  So, in 
order to be as plain as possible, follow me through an example.



You've got a character named Bridje:
                   Bridje   Int 7     Mechanics-1

Under KBv2.0, Bridje's target number for a mechanics roll would be:
                    (1 x 3) + 7 = 10
                    TN = 10

Bridje's experience score for his mechanics skill is 3 (1 x 3).  
Under Nick's idea, when Bridje gets a mechanics skill increase 
(system for this to be determined), his experience score will be:

                        Experience Score = (1 x 3) + 1

Basically, we add 1 to the experience score.  The new target number 
will be:
                      (1 x 3) + 1 + 7 = 11
                      TN = 11

If Bridje gets another increase for his mechanics skill, his 
experience score is raised again by 1 point:

                          Experience Score = (1 x 3) + 2

And, figuring his new target number:
                        (1 x 3) + 2 + 7 = 12
                        TN = 12


How the actual skill level is increased:

On Bridje's third increase, his mechanics skill level is increased by 
1.  Because:

                        (1 x 3) + 3 + 7 = 13
                        TN = 13

is the same as:

                        (2 x 3) + 7 = 13
                        TN = 13



Why I like this:

I like Nick's idea for several reasons.  The biggest is that it fills 
in the gaps that the experience score has.

At skill level 1, your experience score is 3.  At skill level 2, your 
experience score is 6.  At skill level 3, your experience score is 9, 
etc.

Nick's idea, in a simple game mechanic, raises the KBv2.0 experience 
score by one point each increase instead of 3.  

It's a smoother, cleaner system, and, using Nick's idea, it is easy 
to compare the skill of two characters--even if they have the same 
skill level.

Do all Pilot-3's the same level of skill in piloting?

As a general group, I'd say yes.  But when comparing individuals, I'd 
say you might find one Pilot-3 that is a tiny bit better than another 
character also rated at Pilot-3.

Nick's idea distinguishes this through the use of the experience 
score.

Given this system, we now have three phases of skill expertise to a 
skill level.  Look at this chart:

Skill Phase                                   Exp. Score
- -------------------------------------------------------
Brand new Level x.                    3 x Skill Level
Experienced Level x.                  (3 x Skill Level) + 1
Expert Level x.                            (3 x Skill Level) + 2



This is a simple idea (and game mechanic) that is hard to express.  
If I've done a poor job of explaining it, please e-mail me.  I'll try 
to be clearer and answer any questions you might have.

Good job Nick!

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 15:28:29 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com>
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII

First, a quick aside regarding space fighters.  Skip it if you've already
had enough (as I have, for the most part):

Darryl, I have to agree with you here: I like small fightercraft in
Traveller, they have indeed been there since Classic Traveller times
(though I'm not against changing canon to fit better with "reality" as we
understand it), and I find uses for them in my campaign, where they
succeed not as major fleet elements, but as sensor and customs pickets,
probing scout craft, and ground-troop or orbital attack support.  Like in
B5, I guess, they'll never win the day, but they're great for harassment
and sowing confusion.  The recent thread on fighters was interesting, if
long-winded -- I deleted much of it.  Like many arguments on TML, it seems
to be a disagreement more on degree than on principle: how common are
fighters, and what are their duties?  NOTE, however, and this is
particularly important in light of discussion later in the post, that I
provide a limited, but logical rationale for their existence, rather than
just _carte_blanche_ declaring "fighters exist!" without more description,
moderation, or limitation.

End fighter discussion.  Back to the fray!

Here you restate the position that I think is causing all the dissension.
I would quote your letter directly and in the original, but your English
orthography is so execrable that I'll give you a free editing job:

> Traveller technology is based on items that don't exist, can't exist, or
> shouldn't exist....  The reason they are there: because they would be
> fun to have.

But this is wrong.  Traveller technology may not exist (now or ever), or 
be able to exist according to our current scientific knowledge: but, for
the players in the game, IT HAS TO FEEL LIKE IT CAN EXIST!  Gratuitous
handwaving all too easily destroys that suspension of disbelief.  If you
can't see that, you've been watching too many Saturday morning cartoons.
Sure, you might enjoy it, it might be just what you and your players are
looking for... but, to many of us, it disrupts, if I can wax poetic for a
line or two, the poetry of the experience, the joy of trying to exist
logically in someone else's mind, body, and universe.

It is not enough for us to want something to be there.  To wish it into
being without supporting and justifying it is lazy, selfish, and unkind, 
both to you and to your players.  To wit:
 
> > > Why cant I have a wooden ship? 
> > You can.  But please explain why it's economical....
>  
> What if it unfeasable to construct a metal ship due to lack of resources or
> culteral reasons?  What if they find a tree sap that is lighter, sturdier and
> more utalitarian than any metal.  What if they find a way to grow crystals
> cheaply (like Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age). This too is science fiction,
> and should not be disregarded because it does not conform with western 
> consumer technological patterns. 

First, my biology knowledge, even just from long-ago high school, balks at
the idea of a dried sap that is superior to metal.  (What universe is
Australia in, that its inhabitants both speak such wildly different
English and also have such fantastic plants?)  Is the presence of such
miraculous yet simple stuff the reason for battle-dress: so that Imperial
marines can take on the hordes of otherwise-impervious sap-covered TL0
natives?  If sap can replace metal, why doesn't everyone use it, since you
can grow the stuff instead of having to mine and refine it?  Observe that
by lazily providing one throw-away detail, you've changed the Traveller
universe.  Having your own universe is fine, of course -- many on the TML
have their own ways of doing things.  But you don't seem to put the
thought in to consider even the simplest effects of super-sap on the
"canonical" universe. 

As for the idiocy of decrying all this gearhead-vs.-mushhead disagreement
as simply due to "Western consumer technological patterns" -- the laws of
phsyics are not passed by legislatures or bought by consumers.  They exist
regardless of what you and I think, want, or hope.  They determine what is
possible: your culture or economy merely determine what is desirable.  And
a triumph of culture over universe, of hero over fact, is probably one of
the simplest possible descriptions of escapist high fantasy.  Which is
fine, but it isn't Traveller, nor, to my lights, _science_ fiction.  You
can play what you want to play, as you like it: just don't insist that the
system rules and publications, which by Marc Miller's own statements
(read the T4 introduction) emphasize complexity within versimilitude and
the premise that "economics is everything," prostitute themselves to your
own prejudices.

- ----------------------------*------------------------*------------------------
 Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett  |"Nullum magnum ingenium | GURPS fan, Amiga user,
http://www.io.com/~jlockett | sine mixtura dementiae | Shakespearean scholar,
  Email: jlockett@io.com    | fuit." -- Seneca       | actor and director.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 16:30:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher Russell <russcm@zoomnet.net>
Subject: Re:  Earth approach (was: Re: IR Missiles)

On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Paul D. Owensby wrote:

> >It could approach from behind the moon. Once past the moon, it could be
> >picked up by Norad radar, but if it is aware of that system, then it could
> >come in from the south polar region. Even if the radar was a threat, with tl
> >12+ tech, it could be easily jammed, and Norad would simply blame it on a
> >solar flare.
> 
> But I think they'd get a bit suspicious unless there was an associated solar
> flare that they could see. <g>
> 
> Of course, if they planned it to conincide with something like the recent 
> flare that... hey, wait a minute....
> 
As they say on Matlock, "I rest my case". :)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 10:36:01 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)

In mail you write:

>>And supposedly, the computers on the Shuttle are still using ferrite core
>>memory.  Supposedly each of the computers is less powerful than a 386.
>>Anyone know for certain?
>
> Even scarier, they were made by Apple!

That'd be a real neat trick, considering that Apple didn't *exist* when
they were built. We are talking *early* 70s tech here folks!

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:21:38 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Storing H2

In mail you write:

> I just read something interesting. (Anders Backman and any other Swedes
> can look it up, Ny Teknik, Issue 14, April 4th pg 28-29). Currently it's
> possible to store 1716 kg H2 per m^3, what does the Traveller rules say
> about packing H2? How much space is required?

They get 1000 kg in 13.5 or 14 m^3 (depending on which version of the
rules you use). So instead of 1 ton per dTon, you'd get 23.166 ton/dTon
or 24.024 ton/dTon. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 16:40:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher Russell <russcm@zoomnet.net>
Subject: Re: Computer Tech

On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Anders Backman wrote:

> >> TL-13 Holographic displays with tactile feedback, kinda a 3d touch screen,
> >> no need for VR gloves and HUD's.
> 
> How does the holodisplays with tactile feedback work? Some kind of focussed
> nervestimulations on the fingers or what? Perhaps a helmet that stimulate
> the brain to feel as if you touched stuff (that would be a bit far out I
> think).
> 
Some tactical feedback would simply imitate whether an object was rough
or smooth, perhaps using some sort of focused magnetic field. This same
magnetic field could give the feel of resistance to simulate button
pushing. How this would translate to a tactical readout could be limited
only by imagination.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:04:54 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Fighters revisted

In mail you write:

> On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 23:48:32 PST, you wrote:
>
>> In mail you write:
>>
>>>>To quote from the only *decent* Episode of Galactica 1980:
>>>
>>>    I disagree.  There were no decent episodes of Galactica 1980, much
>>>to my bitter disappointment.
>>
>> "The Return of Starbuck" was quite good as long as you ignored the
>> "frame" story. It was at leasty as good as any of the original BG
>> episodes.=20
>
> I cant believe somebody is actually defending "Galactica 1980".  It
> didn't even have Athena in it (I think :)

Hey! I'm only defending the one episode. And I *did* qualify my defense
by saying that "at least as good as the original BG episodes" :-)

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:58:45 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Conservation (was Re: IR masking)

In mail you write:

> Quoth Rupert Boleyn:
>> If the law of Conservation of Momentum isn't broken in T4 then how do
>> thrusters work? I thought that FF&S did away with them for this very 
> reason.
>
> Momentum is conserved, the two components just aren't connected.  That is
> to say, your typical starship might mass some 1E9 grams, but the star (and
> attendant gravity well) against which its thruster plates push masses on
> the order of 1E33 grams, so it's kinda hard to notice its recoil....  :-)

Nice try, but no cigar. If it *was* "pushing" on the star, then the
enery required to increase your velocity would increase as your
velocity increased. That is, if it took X to get to 1 km/s, it'd take
*4X* to get to 2 km/s, and 9X to get to 3 km/s.

That's a *massively* losing proposition.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 16:27:29 -0400
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: Earth approach (was: Re: IR Missiles)

>Which brings me to my question: Could a TL 12 - 15 ship approach earth
>in todays environment without being detected?
>
>If so, How?
>
>Bob
>>>
It could approach from behind the moon. Once past the moon, it could be
picked up by Norad radar, but if it is aware of that system, then it
could
come in from the south polar region. Even if the radar was a threat,
with tl
12+ tech, it could be easily jammed, and Norad would simply blame it on
a
solar flare.
<<<

Thanks for the information. With that in mind, how effective would the
TL-12 EMM be to Norad, and what about other satellites (thermal?), and
other countries watches, etc? And / or what type of difficulty roll
would the PC=92s have to try. I have done this several times with
different players, but after reading all the information on temperature
in space it seems awfully hard to sneak up on a system like Sol. Much
harder then I had made it!

Bob

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:09:32 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Low-tech space fighters

In mail you write:

>         And what was the Sanger antipodal bomber?

Try and find a copy of the old "Rockets, Missiles, and Spacecraft"
book. I forget whether it was by von Braun or by Willy Ley or both.
Anyway, there's a discussion of it there. 

It was a design they came up with near the end of WWII. It was
sub-orbital, but would get high enough to "skip" off the upper
atmosphere 5 or 6 times. That'd have it re-entering on the *opposite*
side of the globe. And it could drop bombs during any skip.

The trouble was, the payload was only about a ton (in addition to the
pilot). And while the "skip" zones did include some useful target
areas, the landing zone didn't include anything thaty the germans *or*
Japanese had control over.

If the German atomic program hadn't made an error that resulted in
their thinking nuclear weapons were impossible, it might have gotten
built because they'd hope to be able to cram one in and drop it on
Washington or Moscow.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:47:02 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Realism and gearheading

In mail you write:

> Now, that being said, should referee's allow their PC's to run around
> and create anything that they want.  NO.  There must be values and
> limitations placed on any technology.  There must be a plausible
> explanation that allows for technology, even if it is imaginary.  Hard
> Science is a good starting point, and most technology should be rooted
> in HS, but there is room for imagination.  So, a new technology follows
> 2 laws of physics, and breaks 1.  Find an imaginary reason that it can
> break that law, and move on.  Try to be as logical as possible, and
> provide a clear definition, but move on.

And here is where the difference between the camps comes in. Your
"reason" has to explain why not only why/how that bit of technology can
break that law of physics, but why *nothing else can*. And in addition,
it has to explain why breaking that law doesn't have <fill in "obvious
to player" consequences>. 

Those two requirements are *very* difficult to fill. We lucked out on
Jump drive, as my researches show that it is sufficiently hard to get
time travel using J-drive plus other Imperial tech that they aren't
likely to have tried very hard.

But thruster plates (to name just one item) are a quite different
story. <sigh>

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 10:56:53 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Missiles+fighters II

In mail you write:

>>Wrong.  Again, traveller has always has big ships with high
>>g-ratings.  This means that they can get a decent velocity up, and
>>slow back down asquickly as any smaller craft.  Traditionally
>>traveller military ships always have a g-rating equal to their
>>g-comp for that TL.
>
> Capital ships usually are moving much slower in a battle situation so they
> can more efficiently stay inside the sphere of the battle. For a capital
> ship to maintain a high velocity, it would have to frequently circle in
> place. High speed is not always usefull if eventually you have to reduce
> that speed quickly, which capital ships cannot do as easilly as smaller 
> vessles.

Why *can't* they slow down as fast? The g-rating measures how fast you
can change speed. So if two ships have the *same* g-rating, then the
only possible difference in how fast they can slow down is how long it
takes to flip the ship end for end so you can use the main drive to
decelerate. And even on *huge* ships, that's a very *minor* amount of
time (for a ship a km long, I think it takes all of a few minutes to
flip if you want to keep the centripetal accel under a g)

> My point related to high speed runs, which means starting from a slow speed,
> quickly getting to high speed, then sheading that velocity once the egress
> is complete, useful for docking with a mother ship. I did not state that
> capital ships are incapable of high speed, just not well suited for tactics
> of that nature.

They can do it as well as anything else with the same g-rating.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:51:50 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: IR Masking

In mail you write:

> Rupert Boleyn quotes somebody else as saying:
>>>The following laws of physics are INMSHO not breakable by SF handwaving:
>>>Conservation of energy
>>>Conservation of charge
>>>Conservation of momentum
>
> I'd like to point out that using a parallel dimension as a heat sink
> wouldn't violate the law of conservation of energy. The energy isn't
> destroyed, it's just move to another place. Yet if that would really
> allow for perpetuum mobiles (how?) then it wouldn't be any good for
> the Traveller universe.

It means that the universe isn't a closed system anymore. And the
machine may not be "perpetual", but it might as well be, depending on
how long it takes for the effective temperature of the other universe
to rise. 

Given the huge number of galaxies in *this* universe, the odds are
pretty good that *somebody* has been making widespread use of this for
millenia. So if they can still dump energy in at a rate that lets a
ship get its hull down to 3K, it's gonna take trillions of years to
make a difference. So that's *effectively* perpetual.

I also have to wonder about what the effect of removing that much
energy from this universe is. It could make the difference between an
open and closed universe. Not good.

Finally, I can use such a heatsink as a superweapon. Set up a *big* one
inside a nickel-iron asteroid. get it to chill the asteroid to 3K or
less. Then drop the asteroid into the star. It'll *stay at 3K, and fall
to the center. And it'll start sucking energy out of the star. 

On the down side, it'll take a *long* time for the star to collapse. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:27:36 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15

In mail you write:

>>Slight problem. As Vernor Vinge and others point out, within a century
>>the technology will be *beyond* anything we could imagine (Vinge calls
>>it "The Singularity"). 
>
> [snip of example of high tech mining and manufacturing}
>
>>And this makes 90% of Traveller impossible or silly. And a game based
>>on this *realistic* projection wouldn't sell. Because most folks either
>>wouldn't believe it, or couldn't understand it.
>
> Which is why I can't understand why everyone gets so caught up all
> the time in the "Hey, you can't do that, it ain't realistic!!"
> arguments that flow back and forth across this list. Even the more
> blatant violations of the laws of physics, it ain't like Traveller
> doesn't have enough on its own <g>.

We are talking about two different kinds of "realistic" here. The
arguments on the list tend to be "that violates the laws of physics"
*or* "that's not likely to match the way *technology* will evolve".

Those are two *very* different topics. Traveller only violates the laws
of physics in two places. Jump drive, and thruster plates. Jump drive
is kinda necessary for good stories, so it is "allowed" as long as it
is *consistent* (just like in most SF) just for the sake of getting on
with the story. And Physics *does* have some loopholes that might allow
FTL.

Thruster plates are a different matter. They are hard to justify, and
open up *way* too many cans of worms. While physics does have a few
loopholes that would allow something *like* thrusters, they'd have to
work rather differently. 

CG is not impossible. Though again it'd work somewhat differently based
on what we know. But unlike thruster plates, the difference *isn't*
enough to cause major problems (they'd counteract a fixed amount of
pull, not a fixed *percentage* of pull)

Meson guns can't work with mesons, but it's not impossible (just really
unlikely) for there to be particles that act that way.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 10:49:01 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: IR masking.

In mail you write:

>>> So, if a ship can sense, perhaps with sensors along it's hull, it's own
>>> emissions, then it can transmit an inverse of the wave, perhaps with
>>> something similar to a radio transmitter, since radio is a type of EM
>>> emission, set to emit in the IR wavelength. This would be very difficult
>>> to get perfect, so it would only dampen the emission, not eliminate it.
>>>
>>> This, in theory, is how EMM would work in Milenu 0. This also may be the
>>> founding principle on cloaking.
>>
>>First problem. The whole technique requires that you be able to take
>>the data from the sensors, process it, and get it to the emitters
>>*before* the wave you want to cancel gets there. Unfortunately, this
>>requires FTL wiring and signal processing gear.
>
> Actually, even though it sounds like it, that is not exactly the method I
> was refering to.

Sorry, but that *is* whole the noise cancellers work.

> The sensors along the hull detect the signals over time, and compares them
> with a database of typical produced signals for that operation situation. If
> there is a change over time, and especially if it a change that is different
> than expected, then the signal out can be modified.

No. They have to measure the *waveform*, not the frequency. And you
have to *compute* the canceling waveform (admittedly, it's going to be
via an analog computer, but it still takes time).

To put it another way, what the sound cancellers are measuring is *not*
frequency. They are measuring relative air pressure (ie the height of
the peaks and troughs in the waves). They drive the emitters to create
matching but opposed peaks and troughs. So when they measure a peak of
so many micropascals, they create a trough of the same number of
millipascals. This requires microsecond by microsecond measurement.

For EM, the corresponding trick is to measure the EM *field strength*,
and compute and emitting fields with the opposite sign, but the same
strength. 

You are not canceling *frequencies* here. You are canceling *waves*. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 10:38:28 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: IR masking.

In mail you write:

>>Can't do that as IR emissions are random blackbody radiation while sound is
>>more like lasers ie single to a few different frequencies. The sound
>>damping you describe is regularly done on transformers to dampen the cool
>>50 Hz (60 in the US) hum they emit. This technique does not work on noise
>>however and IR emissions can be thought of as radiation noise. Also the
>>technique when applied to IR would break the conservation of energy law.
>>
>>The following laws of physics are INMSHO not breakable by SF handwaving:
>>Conservation of energy
>>Conservation of charge
>>Conservation of momentum
>
> Actually the technique I'm refering to is either being tested for use on or
> being used to dampen sound noise on some luxury cars, and I hear it is quite
> effective in blocking out noise from inner - city trafic. Not 100%
> eliminated, but reduced to a more tolerable level.

It works with *sound*, because the circuitry generating the damping
signals works at a fraction of the speed of light! You can't do it with
EM radiation because your signal processing gear is *slower* than the
signal you are trying to mask.

> However, the type of dampening I am refering to is from known, rateable
> sources coming from the ship, like the power plant, etc.

It doesn't matter if they are "known". The signal coming out of them is
essentially *random*. That means you need to *measure* the signal and
*compute* the dampening signal. And by the time you do that, it is too
late, the signal is meters away from the ship. You need FTL computers
and wiring to pull off EM masking by counterphased wave emission.

> This will work
> somewhat similar to shining two differently colored lights togeather and
> getting the result matching the average of their two frequencies. Example,
> shine red and voilet togeather and you get something in the range of green,
> I believe.

If you mix red light and green light you get a mix of red and green
light. The human *eye* will see it as a different color. Sensors won't.

> The IR masking would be adveraging the frequency of the first
> with a matching frequency, just 180 degrees out of phase (or as close as
> possible to 180 out).

It can't be "averaged". It has to be *exactly* 180 degrees out of
phase, otherwise it doesn't cancel. You have to *measure* and then
compute the canceling signal INCLUDING ALLOWING FOR HOW IT CHANGES
BETWEEN WHERE YOU MEASURED IT AND WHERE THE CANCELING EMITTERS ARE.
Then you have to tell the emitters to emit it. And speed of light lag
kills the whole idea.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:37:35 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Realism vs. play value

In mail you write:

>>>The problem is to make sure your new laws dosen't have undesired 
>>>ramifications. Take the heat sink idea, for example. Postulate the
>>>availability of a heat sink inside a starship and no other changes in
>>>the laws of physics. Would that allow other, undesirable, effects?
>>>(Like drawing power out of thin air).
>> 
>>And the answer is, yes, it would.  
>
> OK, please explain how. It's not that I doubt you, it's that I don't
> understand how that would work. I would have thought that having a hole
> where you can pour in energy, but not take it out again, would result
> in a net energy loss. I can't understand how you can turn that into an
> energy-producing gizmo.

Easy, by *definition* a heat sink is something *colder* than what you
have it attached to. One of the fundamental laws of thermodynamics sets
a max value for the energy you can extract from the temp difference
between a heat source and a heat sink, based on the temp difference. 

So, since there *is* a temp difference, and one that is essentially
fixed, you can extract energy from the flow of heat between them. Since
you were talking about a heat sink that can be used to cool the ship to
look like the background (3K) it has to be *less* than 3K. And that
means you can extract a *lot* of energy from the difference in temp
between 300K and <3K. 

Also, since you can get rid of the heat *fast*, apparently you can do
so by conduction or convection, rather than via radiation. So that
makes the power source even better.

>>The closest things to IR masking you can do without breaking physics 
>
> Actually, introducing a parallel dimension isn't breaking physics, it's
> extending it.

Yes and no. It breaks things because the universe is no longer a closed
system. This changes a *lot* of things.

>>and introducing unintended consequences are:
>> 
>>(a) Chill the side of the ship toward your opponent, radiate a *lot* more
>>    heat off the other side.  This takes truly scary amounts of power,
>>    and still only gives you stealth in one direction -- you're visible
>>    for light-hours from the other directions.
>> 
>> (b) Use flares/decoys to confuse the IR target picture, losing yourself
>>     in the clutter.
>
> How about an extremely efficient heat storage device? I know that that will
> also give you extremely efficient energy storage, which is why I didn't
> suggest it before, but can it be adjusted not to break other parts of
> the Traveller technology?

There's a big difference between "heat storage" and "energy storage".
While heat *is* energy, it's also the "lowest" form of energy. You can
only extract energy from heat by letting heat flow from a high temp to
a low temp. 

And "heat storage" is a problem. As soon as the "storage" device gets
hotter inside than whatever you are trying to move heat into it from,
it takes energy to "pump" the heat into it. And that energy is
determined by that same formula I mentioned before. Only thing is, in
this casem rather than setting a maximum, it is setting a *minimum*.
And as the temp difference increases, the energy requirements *skyrocket*.

You also need very good insulation to keep the heat from leaking out. 

You *could* use this as an energy storage device, but it'd be
*hideously* inefficient. 

> (And, btw., how long can you "mask" a starship using it's capacitors as a
> heat storage device?)

Right up to the point where they reach max energy capacity. At which
point they explode and take the ship with them. :-)

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1192
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest       Monday, April 14 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1193



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII (longish)
Re: Norris Sexual Orientation
Re: Norris Sexual Orientation
Re: Norris Sexual Orientation
Re: Vargr Sexual Preferences
Re: [TML] Critical Hit
Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Re: Low-tech space fighters
Re: Norris' sexual orientation
So what else is new and improved?
Sanger Antipodal Bomber article
Re: What is Science? (was Re: Realism vs. Play Value)
Re: Computer Tech
low tech...the truth
re PBEM
Crimson class Patrol Cruiser, from Aurelian Indistries (LONG)
Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing
Re: IR masking
Re: Norris' Preferences
Re: WIZARDS OF THE COAST TO ACQUIRE TSR INC.
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:07:33 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Play Value, part MDLXII (longish)

In mail you write:

>>The reson is that I play with scientifically literate people and if I made
>>some stupid plotdevice SF shit (HEPLAR for instance) they will find
>>loopholes and contradictions that make it hard for me as a ref but worst of
>
> I'll ask what I asked in an earlier reply: Am I the only ref who's
> players aren't engaged in a contest of "let's beat the rules"? Are
> they not able to handle a rational discussion of "Look guys, this is
> the way it is, and to do it any other way would break the game and
> spoil everyone's fun"?

You misunderstand the sort of situation he's talking about. They aren't
trying "let's beat the rules". They just noticed that the rules should
let them do something that they think would be useful (or at least
"neat"). So they sit down and figure out the details according to the
rules they've been given.

Naturally, they are going to be rather upset when told "no, you can't
do that even though the rules say that you can". They've wasted time
and effort, and worse, they've found that they can't count on the rules
without checking with the ref first. That *really* gets folks upset.

>>Actually RPG follows the same rules as fiction ie:
>>The stories/adventures has to be consistent with the genre and most people
>>agree Traveller is supposed to be hard SF so you're allowed to break one
>>law of physics but then you'll have to live with the consequences. Actually
>>Traveller break quite a few laws of physics but the duty of the mailing
>>lists is to come up with fixes or handwaves to make scientifically literate
>>people still believe in the universe.
>
> Funny, in all my lit classes I never saw the rule allowing SF to
> break only one law of physics <g>.

Ask any *published* popular author what he thinks of lit classes. Be
prepared to have your ears scorched off. 

The "only change *one* thing" rule is a *standard* convention of SF.
Has been for 60 years or more. A few things like FTL travel are
allowable as "gimmees" if they make the story easier (this assumes that
they are inconsequential plot points).

The reason that you only change one thing is that this gives the reader
a chance to try and figure out where you are going.

> Traveller is a lot more space opera than science fact....

Sorry, but it has *from the beginning* been more hard SF than space
opera. For one thing, in Traveller, the heros aren't "virtually
invulnerable" (compare any Traveller character to Kimball Kinnison).
For another, characters aren't pulling new bits of super science out of
their hats every time you turn around. *Those* are the hallmarks of
space opera. I enjoy reading it. But it's not that much fun to play.

> The constant threads about thrusters, heat radiation, fighters vs
> capital ships, 0.1c rocks, IR masking, sensors, the broken to the
> point of non-existence economic system, the alternate characteristic
> and task systems, the believability of EDU as a stat, jump space,
> etc.  seem to prove to me that the entire point of this list is to
> handwave science fact into a predominently space opera game.

Thrusters were a mistake (IMO). .01c rocks *can* be done given the Oort
cloud, Jump drive, and enough credits. Most SF has broken economics. 

But if this was a "space opera" game, we wouldn't be arguing about
these things because in space opera you aren't supposed to worry about
the little details!

The fact that we *are* discussing them shows that we are trying to
*keep* the SF as "hard" as it was intended to be.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 16:17:58 -0700
From: Shade <jwatts@catt.com>
Subject: Re: Norris Sexual Orientation

>When did we establish that Norris was gay?

Well, I dunno.  I asked if perhaps he was, considering the evidence, but 
never got an answer.  The next thing I knew, it was official.

Who knew?

John
- -- 
"Disco still sucks!!!"

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 16:21:54 -0700
From: Shade <jwatts@catt.com>
Subject: Re: Norris Sexual Orientation

All of my players are adults as well, and as a consequence of my also 
wanting to have a happier future, I have all sorts of sexual orientations 
in my universe as well.

I even have lesbians with children.  Tell the Tennessee State Legislature 
to put that in their pipe and smoke it :)

John
- -- 
"Disco still sucks!!!"

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 16:43:04 -0700
From: Shade <jwatts@catt.com>
Subject: Re: Norris Sexual Orientation

Dont ya love it??  

You never hear much from me until we start talking sex.

Damn... I feel like a perv.

John
- -- 
"Disco still sucks!!!"

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 16:25:11 -0700
From: Shade <jwatts@catt.com>
Subject: Re: Vargr Sexual Preferences

As I remember, someone on this list several years ago offered a file 
called " Traveller's Little Talk When You're Old Enough ".  I have it 
here somewhere in hard copy.  Along with a biological discussion of Vargr 
and Aslan sexual habits and so forth, it also contains some nice sexually 
driven anti-human slurs. :)

John
- -- 
"Disco still sucks!!!"

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 17:49:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: mfulghum@awod.com (Michael Fulghum)
Subject: Re: [TML] Critical Hit

>Well, not so, says I.  We also use expanded medical rules (also in my 
>House Rules), and in them, there is a rule for wound deterioriation.  
>If medical help is not received in the specified time (longer for 
>superfical and minor wounds--shorter time periods for serious and 
>critical wounds), then a check is made to see if the wound 
>deteriorates.  If this roll is failed, then the character starts 
>takeing additional damage until either treatment is received or the 
>character dies.
>
Please sir if you could tell me where your house rules are located on the
Web, I would be most appreative.  I did not see a Web page in your post.  If
they are not on the Web, could you send them.  I have been playing Traveller
since it first came out (around 1977?) and am always looking for new ideas.
Thank you in advance.

Mike Fulghum
mfulghum@awod.com

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 15:46:01 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)

Leonard Erickson wrote:
> 
> In mail you write:
> 
> >>And supposedly, the computers on the Shuttle are still using ferrite core
> >>memory.  Supposedly each of the computers is less powerful than a 386.
> >>Anyone know for certain?
> >
> > Even scarier, they were made by Apple!
> 
> That'd be a real neat trick, considering that Apple didn't *exist* when
> they were built. We are talking *early* 70s tech here folks!

The shuttle first launched in 1981. The prototype, Enterprise, flew
in 1977, if memory serves. The computer technology for Columbia, given
these dates, should have been late 1970's because NASA's contractors
would have improved upon Enterprise.

Now, when did Apple form? Right around then, no?

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:59:50 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, John R. Snead wrote:
> 
> One of my gripes with cyberpunk is how unlikely some of it is.  While
> hackers and spies might well get implanted neural jacks, Jane or John
> clerk will not.  Someone will be designing interfaces for average folks,
> and by 5700 AD I'd expect them to be pretty damn sophisticated (if for no
> other reason than that humans will have been using computers for many
> centuries, not 40-some years). 

Try reading Samuel R. Delaney's "Nova" sometime, for a feeling of what a
far future tech could be. We're NOT talking about no %$#@ 'ten years in
the future cyberpunk', we're talking 3000+ years!

In "Nova" there's one character that expresses disbelief that there's
anyone who doesn't have neural jacks...much less an entire group (one of
the characters is a Gypsy, a real live Romany from old Terra, and they
don't get the jacks implanted. As a result they can't get work, and are
persecuted fairly badly)

There's also a short discussion about how the invention of the neural
jacks vastly changed the concept of 'work' for most people.

There are other things in there as well, that can lend a great deal of
flavor to a Traveller campaign.

The problems I'm having with all this "future technology" is that somehow
EVERYTHING gets turned into a stagnant Vilani state for the next couple of
thousand years, that somehow the pace of technological change slows to a
crawl...why is everyone assuming that year Zero looks like 2010 with
JumpDrives? or worse, 1997 with jumpdrives, fusion and antigravity (flying
frogs excepted)?

We have advanced what, two, three tech levels in this century alone in
many areas, so why is the assumption made that the future looks so much
like today, or that what we percieve as limits are in fact true limits?

Why do I get the feeling that, to many people, the world of Traveller
resembles nothing so much as a 1960's GM pipe dream with better art?

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 15:58:47 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Low-tech space fighters

On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Leonard Erickson wrote:

> In mail you write:
> 
> >         And what was the Sanger antipodal bomber?
> 
> Try and find a copy of the old "Rockets, Missiles, and Spacecraft"
> book. I forget whether it was by von Braun or by Willy Ley or both.
> Anyway, there's a discussion of it there. 
> 
> It was a design they came up with near the end of WWII. It was
> sub-orbital, but would get high enough to "skip" off the upper
> atmosphere 5 or 6 times. That'd have it re-entering on the *opposite*
> side of the globe. And it could drop bombs during any skip.

IIRC this was the cover story on Air and Space Magazine several years
ago..I remember the cover illo being of the Luftwaffe marked lifting body
type  aircraft re-entering.

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 20:01:09 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Norris' sexual orientation

>When did we establish that Norris was gay?
>
>- --Glenn

It's a TNE thing ;)


- --------------- Dom Mooney (dom@cybergoths.u-net.com)---------------
"The fall of Empire, Gentlemen, is a massive thing, however, and not easily
fought. It is dictated by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a
freezing of caste, a damming of curiousity - a hundred other factors."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Hari Seldon - Azimov's "Foundation"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 00:16:05 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: So what else is new and improved?

Joe,

To date we have Starships, T4 itself, and First Survey all with hints that
they are being revised and reissued. Is this the lot? Are there any
timescales for this yet?

Dom

- --------------- Dom Mooney (dom@cybergoths.u-net.com)---------------
"The fall of Empire, Gentlemen, is a massive thing, however, and not easily
fought. It is dictated by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a
freezing of caste, a damming of curiousity - a hundred other factors."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Hari Seldon - Azimov's "Foundation"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 16:18:50 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Sanger Antipodal Bomber article

I looked it up in Air and Space's online index:
(http://airspacemag.earthlink.net/)

August/September 1987

The High Flying Legacy of Eugen Sanger" by Helmut Muller
          A German scientist worked on a concept for a space plane that
could have bombed New York.

	Roderick...you might want to check this out for your
Traveller:1965 project.

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 10:24:20 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: What is Science? (was Re: Realism vs. Play Value)

On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Leonard Erickson wrote:

> >From the comments several of the "let's not let realism get in the way"
> fols are making, I strongly suspect that they are victims of what
> passes for an educational system in the US.
> 
> You see, "science" is nothing more (and nothing *less*!) than the
> *only* RELIABLE means of forecasting the future that we have
> discovered. 

A point that people seem to miss (or is it the media) Scientists are
human. Scientists lie, scientists bend arms,
and argue to make there point, just like any other orginisation.  They
disagree and agree on various points and theories.  Also, the rules of
scince change.  The rules of the game at the moment are Einsteins, and his
rules are built up on his predecossors ideas - but things can change, and
usually quite suddenly.

Please dont get me wrong Leonard, all the points you made were valid, and
we really dont have anything beyond science for things like space battles
etc, but science can be wrong.  Actually it can be really wrong.


PaChi,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


Iam  not in the habit of looking at the matter of a present, but
i am in the habit of looking at the spirit of the gift.
Corner

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 19:32:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Re: Computer Tech

>The "official" meaning of the acronym is now Digital Versatile Disk.
How long before it becomes the IF (Info-Frisbee)?
dsf

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 16:28:28 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: low tech...the truth

is truly stranger than any fiction. Since Leonard's post about the Sanger
bomber re-piqued my interest about the thing, I did a little digging on
the net and found a page devoted to German WWII jet aircraft designs, most
of which never flew. The strangest was this:

site:

http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/~johansson/FLYGHTML/ramfaq/germanjets.html

"* Lippisch P13a:  This one takes the prize (any prize).  It was a
ramjet-powered, sharply swept delta, with the cockpit built into the tail
fin.  It was powered by coal gas generated from solid fuel, and had a
nominal design speed of 1650 km/h. Yes, you read that right -- a
coal-powered supersonic fighter.  A small rocket engine was provided for
take-off.  Alas, it never flew.  The DM-1 glider, built along the same
general lines and intended to validate the airframe design, was completed
after the war and test-flown in the US; some results were published in
_Lippisch P13a and Experimental DM-1_ by Hans-Peter Dabrowski (Schiffer
Military History; ISBN 0-88740-479-0).  Aerodynamic testing in a
wind-tunnel took place at Langley field, by what was then NACA, in 1946.
Results were "disappointing", but led eventually to the successful delta
wing concept. "

	Talk about steampunk..a coal-fired supersonic fighter.


Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:37:49 +1000
From: shane.dowling@deetya.gov.au
Subject: re PBEM

>Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 04:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>
>Subject: PBEM: Players wanted

>  Just a repeat announcement to make it clear that I will be running a
>PBEM game starting May 1 based on the idea of a ISS rescue service.
>Players will be either scout personell assigned to rescue boat duty, or
>base personel with more minor roles in the story.  Titled "Beltwatch", the
>game will be lighthearted and heroic in orientation, with standard
>Traveller mechanics.  It is set in Millue 0.

if the medic is not taken I would like to play.  In fact I will play
anything else if the medic is taken and you have a place left.

If this is full, sorry about wasting your time.

Shane

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 16:29:49 -0700
From: scharlto@ifsna.com
Subject: Crimson class Patrol Cruiser, from Aurelian Indistries (LONG)

Crimson class Patrol Cruiser (QSDS 1.5)
Submitted By:   Aurelian Industries, via Steven Charlton
scharlto@ifsna.com
Tons: 600Std (AF Slab)   Volume: 8400 m3       Cost: 692.119125MCr
Crew: 27                 High/Med Pass: 0/8    Low: 0
Cargo: 1 Std             Controls: Mil(Fib)(B) TL: 12
08 Size                             2 Jump Drive (120 Std/Pc Fuel)
2x 136Mj Lsr Batt (+4) 1/3-3-2-0    5 Maneuver (5G T-Plates,756MW)
1x 1336Mj Lsr Bay (+4) 1/6-6-6-5   10 Power Plant (1x 3000Mw)
1x MslBarb(+4) 4/5+               152 Std Fuel (Refine 5/hour, Scoops)
                                    4 Meson Screen
                                    3 Sandcasters (90)
                                    3 Nuclear Damper
                                  A16 P5 J16 Sensors
                                   20 Armour, 19 Structure
Crew Detail - 5 Engineers, 2 Electronics, 2 Maneuver, 4 Gunnery,
              7 Screens, 4 Command, 2 Stewards, 1 Medical
Notes
The Crimson class is Aurelian Industries latest offering to the Imperial
Navy.  Following in the tradition of its "big brother," the DE-7
Gilaadin-class Destroyer Escort, the Crimson class continues the tradition
of partnership between Aurelian Industries and the Imperial Navy.

Designed to provide the maximum in independence, the Crimson relies on
proven laser technology to give maximum firepower with a minimum of
starport support.  The powerful INSW-23XL Bay Laser serves as the "mailed
fist" of the Crimson, giving the vessel firepower equivalent to many
smaller ships of the line found in the hinterlands of space.  Supported by
two synchronized batteries of high-powered military lasers, the Crimson
also boasts a missile barbette and master fire director.  To further
support the independent operations concept of the Crimson, the ship is also
equipped with a 5-ton missile locker adjacent to the missile barbette.
With a fully loaded barbette and missile locker, the Crimson can employ
missiles in numerous engagements before requiring resupply.

But the Crimson is not just weapons; it is also a home to nearly 30
Imperial Navy officers and men.  Because of this, Aurelian Industries has
spared no effort or expense toward providing an impressive defensive array
for this vessel.  The first element of this array is speed; the Crimson is
rated at 5G; nearly as fast as the agile gunboats and fighters of the
Imperial Navy.  In addition, the Crimson is sheathed in the latest Imperial
Meson Screen technology, and defended by three point-defense sandcasters
and nuclear dampers.  Should these defenses prove insifficient, the crew of
the Crimson is also defended by the ship's armor and enhanced structure,
which allows the vessel to maneuver at the peak of its powerful drive
capacity and still absorb punishment.

The independent operations concept that drives the weapons and defenses of
the Crimson also drive other aspects of the design.  The ship is built on
an airframe hull, and is fully capable of all intra- and extra- atmospheric
operations.  With the Crimson's fuel sccops and purifiers, the ship can
fill its tanks and fly almost immediately, and be ready to jump in just
over a day.  The ship also has a small cargo area available for carrying
additional rations or supplies, for longer-range voyages.

However, the Crimson does not have to work alone.  With its
fully-integrated bridge and advanced communications array, the ship can
operate with any sort of task force or fleet assembled by the Imperium or
its allies.  The Crimson is equipped with the finest Medium Military
sensors, allowing it to guard the flanks of a larger fleet, or detect foes
while acting independently.  Operating in conjunction with a squadron of
other Crimson-class vessels, the ship can coordinate the search of an
entire planetary system.  To aid in this, four additional staterooms are
provided to accomodate a squadron commander and his staff, or a squad of
Imperial Marines for boarding actions.  With only minor modifications, the
four spare rooms can also be converted into larger rooms for transporting
VIPs, or converted into additional storage or recreational facilities for
the crew on a long patrol.  The ship has 20 staterooms; 12 are used by the
ship's enlisted crew in double-capacity, and four are used by the ships
officers in single-capacity.


Design Details
Spaceship Name: Crimson Class Patrol Cruiser
Tech Level: 12
Displacement: 600
                            Volume  SurfArea     Power     Price
600Std AF Slab A:20 6G      -562.4   -3068.0     103.4     31.8000
J2 Jump Drive and fuel       138.0      84.0       0.0     75.6000
5G T-Plates                   54.0     152.0     756.0    189.0000
Std Mil Avionics               3.4        .3       2.5     18.2000
Med Mil Sensors                4.5     262.0     201.2     92.9000
Advanced Commo                21.5     203.0      21.5      2.0000
Missile Barbette & MFD         8.3      22.1       3.3     25.7000
2x 136Mj Laser Battery        28.6      84.2     272.8     63.2000
TL12 Laser Bay                50.0      91.6    1336.4     98.1000
Missile Locker                 5.0       0.0       0.0      0.0000
3x Sandcasters                 9.0      30.0       3.0      2.4000
Meson Screen (PV4)             8.6      60.0       6.0     12.0000
3x Nuclear Dampers            16.0      60.0      45.0      6.0000
1x Sickbay                     8.0       0.0       0.8      5.0000
Fuel Purifier (5/hour)        12.0       0.0       2.5      0.1000
1x 3000MW Fusion & fuel      139.2       0.0   -3000.0    300.0000
17x Workstations               8.5       0.0       0.0      0.0255
Bridge & Bridge Workstations   6.0       0.0       0.0      0.0000
20x Small Staterooms          40.0       0.0       0.1      0.0000
TOTALS                       - 1.8   -2018.8    -245.5    922.8255
                                          After Discount  692.1191

DESIGNERS NOTES
Per the April THUDDD announcement, the following requirements had to be
met:

1. Must be capeable of standing alone against groups of pirate/raiding
vessels.

2. Must be able to work in conjunction with larger fleet actions.

3. Must be capeable of wilderness refueling (Either directly or small
craft)

4. Must be cost effective (not necessarily cheap or inexpensive).

5. Required Minimums/Maximums:
       Size:  600 tons maximum
      Jump:  2 minimum        Maneuver:  2 minimum
     Cargo:  Minimal          Carried Craft:  As Needed
   Offense:  Above Average          Defense:  Superior
      Crew:  Must have full medical facility.
             Must provide quarters for additional command personnell.
                   (For inspections, and transport)

Requirement 1 is met by the VERY powerful main gun (the 50-ton laser bay),
supported by two smaller laser batteries and a missile launcher.  The
missile launcher is even provided additional tonnage for more missiles.

Requirement 2 is met by the ship's "standard" Jump 2 rating, and well above
standard 5G rating.  In addition, while the Crimson class has a weapon good
enough to attack small capital ships, it is equipped with very good
sensors, allowing it to be used as a picket ship on the fringes of the
fleet, supporting the larger Destroyers and Destroyer Escorts.  The ship
also carries the best commounications available for a ship of this size,
allowing it to remain in contact with the rest of the fleet.

Requirement 3 is met via the fuel scoops and fuel purifier.  The Crimson
class has an airframe hull, allowing it to refuel from a Gas Giant, or land
on a world with available water supplies for refueling there.

Requirement 4 is very subjective, but I feel it is also met.  At just under
700 MCr, the Crimson class is not "cheap."  However, it is tasked with a
mission far more extensive than that of the "Classic" Traveller Patrol
Cruiser.  That vessel was equipped to handle customs/patrol work and light
anti-piracy duties.  It would never have been able to meet Requirement 1,
and its meeting Requirement 2 would be questionable (in my opinion).  In
reality, the craft described in these requirements is closer to a Destroyer
Escort from "Classic" Traveller.  For 700 MCr, the Imperium is getting a
vessel that can be used independently or in small groups for
commerce/patrol work, or even for heavy anti-piracy actions.  Most pirate
vessels will skimp on defenses in favor of space for loot/prisoners, or in
favor of room for boarding troops.  Their offensive weapons will be better,
but it would be doubtful that your "average" pirate would be carrying a
50-ton Laser Bay.  Those pirates large enough or successful enough to carry
such armament would be the targets of a naval task force with several
Destroyers, at least, not one or two Patrol Cruisers.  The Patrol Cruiser
would need the firepower to knock out a light opponent or discourage a
medium opponent, and the defenses and speed to survive and run away from a
heavy opponent.  The Crimson class can fulfill all of these needs, and by
that token is Cost Effective.

Requirement 5 is also met.  The Crimson class is 600 tons, Jump 2, 5G, has
heavy firepower and good defenses, and has a sickbay.  There are additional
rooms for carried troops or inspectors, and since the ship has an Airframe
hull no carried craft are needed.  The minimal cargo capacity is enough to
provide additional rations for an extended patrol, and the missile locker
allows the ship to replenish the missles in its Missile Barbette when
required.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 19:44:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing

In a message dated 97-04-13 01:21:42 EDT,Cberry writes:

> You gulp and nod as a broad grin blooms on her face, then the
>other players'.  "OK, we aim the waste-heat beam at that nice dry wooden
>keep.  Engineer, crank the fusion-plus unit up to 'roast', please."
>
>Result:  One wrecked scenario.  Your choices as GM?
>
Let the players try to outrun a massive firestorm. Not a wildfire, a
firestorm. 
dsf

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 16:50:54 -0800
From: "David P. Summers" <dsummers@mail.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: IR masking

Mon, 14 Apr 1997 00:30:48 PST, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
>> The fact is that one can certainly see
>> a ship masking itself by either using a force emission at
>> a wavelength that is better masked by the background (like
>> the interstellar microwave background) and by emitting the
>> energy on a tight beam away from the enemy.

>Sorry, but thermodynamics says that you can't turn waste energy (heat)
>into coherent emissions.

Actually you can.  Just as you can turn low grade heat into
high grade heat by putting energy in (this is refrigeration).
After all, a simple example would be to just use a heat
pump to make a high grade heat resevoir that you use
to make electricity (and power a laser).  Less "Rub
Goldbergesque" approaches would use the same
thermodynamics.

>That'd involve reversing entropy.

YOu can't reverse entropy of the _universe_.  You can
reverse entropy of a specific system at the cost of
energy.

>Yeah, but it takes a *lot* of energy to make a "significant" shift. And
>the amount required varies with the 4th power of the temp difference
>you are trying to maintain. It's that 4th power law that kills the idea.

We are talking about not using black body emmision rather
than just shifting a black body emmitter.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 01:02:58 +0100
From: catwalk <catwalk@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: Norris' Preferences

Who really cares?

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 20:17:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Re: WIZARDS OF THE COAST TO ACQUIRE TSR INC.

Does this mean that TSR is bailed out? I thought they were in real financial
trouble. And is Wizards going to be distributed through Random House? 
dsf

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 20:14:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

Nicolas LeJeune brings up several good points about computer tech, and got me
thinking (always dangerous). In the far flung future, it is quite likely that
computers will be treated in the same manner that we treat phones, ie.
thousands of different kinds for all kinds of people.
For example:
- -Cute little hand-held Newton things for the kids, probably with Barney on
them.
- -Briefcase models with holo 2d screen for business types for presentation
- -Modular systems to fit into backpacks with neural interface for gearheads
(wireheads?)
- -Table models, looking like billard tables, with touch screens for tactical
work and  graphic designs

Speaking from a "cell-phone people should be slapped" perspective, once the
tech gets small enough to be annoying, it will be, and marketing departments
everywhere will get to work. "A variety of interfaces, to please every user,
from Naashikka, of course"
dsf

    

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1193
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest      Tuesday, April 15 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1194



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: TAS Form 2 (sorta..)
Re: IR Masking - tech problem
Destroyer+Cruiser+BattleShip+DreadNaught
Re:  Norris' sexual orientation
Re: Vargr Sexual Preferences
Re:  Norris' sexual orientation
Re: Norris' sexual orientation
Re: Why we discuss fighters
Re: Imperial Yacht
Re: So what else is new and improved?
Re: H2 Storage
Re: 2D starmaps
Re: Destroyer+Cruiser+BattleShip+DreadNaught
Re: Earth approach (was: Re: IR Missiles)
Gravity Sails and Ether Propellers!
Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing
Re: What is Science? (was Re: Realism vs. Play Value)
NOVA
Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)
Tech talk
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Re: Conservation (was Re: IR masking)
JOT & Experience
Re: So what else is new and improved?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 20:30:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Re: TAS Form 2 (sorta..)

> I have friends that might be interested in Ken's views
>on body piercing :)

WAY TOO MUCH INFORMATION!
dsf

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 17:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: IR Masking - tech problem

> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 09:39:51 -0700
> From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
> 
> Masking that just reduces emissions is fine.  There are some problems with
> reducing the hull to 3K, but it is at least feasible.

Some large chunk of your ship's exterior has to be *far* hotter than the
ambient background (3 K far from a world or star, hotter close to either),
or you won't lose heat energy fast enough.  The net energy flow between a
heat source and a heat sink is proportional to the *fourth power* of the
temperature difference between them.  You either need a high temperature
in small area, or a lowish (but nowhere near 3K) temp. in a much larger
area (like the "stealth balloon" someone proposed), for the same power
level.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 12:30:49 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Destroyer+Cruiser+BattleShip+DreadNaught

In traveller, or failing that, in teh real world,  what distingushs a
destroyer from a cruiser, is it just the roll it was built for or the
tonnage or both?  If its tonnage what are the ranges for each class?
Thanks!


SaHua,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


Meisetsu
THE ONLY TRACE
The travelling monk has vanished in the mists; but
still his little silver bell persists.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 21:20:45 -0400
From: Steven K Pritchard <spritch@cinternet.net>
Subject: Re:  Norris' sexual orientation

I personally believe that Norris just never found the right woman.  Just
because his closest friend was a MALE psionic seneschal doesn't make him
gay! <G>

Steve Pritchard
http://www.cinternet.net/~mpritch

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.  Inside of a dog, it's too
dark to read."
						--Groucho Marx

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 21:42:18 +0000
From: Mused <marz@HotStar.net>
Subject: Re: Vargr Sexual Preferences

Vargr prefer doggy style....

Well. Someone had to say it

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 21:20:45 -0400
From: Steven K Pritchard <spritch@cinternet.net>
Subject: Re:  Norris' sexual orientation

I personally believe that Norris just never found the right woman.  Just
because his closest friend was a MALE psionic seneschal doesn't make him
gay! <G>

Steve Pritchard
http://www.cinternet.net/~mpritch

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.  Inside of a dog, it's too
dark to read."
						--Groucho Marx

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 21:46:25 +0000
From: Mused <marz@HotStar.net>
Subject: Re: Norris' sexual orientation

SD Mooney wrote:
> 
> When did we establish that Norris was gay?
> >- --Glenn
> 
> It's a TNE thing ;)

Norris was not gay. The man was asexual in the extreme. His life was his people. 
The basis for this was his lack of a sex life detailed in TNE. 
Just because a man isn't ruled by his nards does not mean the man is gay
The special relationship with old chrome dome was one of trusted advisor. Now, 
imagine a trusted advisor who not only can anticipate your thoughts but actually read 
them

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 21:50:56 +0000
From: Mused <marz@HotStar.net>
Subject: Re: Why we discuss fighters

Anders Backman wrote:
> 
> But when people say that "fighters are useless, because they can not work
> in the real world",

These are the same people who  say the main battle tank is obsolete, helicopters wouldn't 
last 2 minutes in a modern war and infantry won't survive 3 seconds in a high intensity 
battle. The US airforce got its ass kicked in early dogfighting over Viet Nam because 
they felt that cannons were obsolete. Nimble MiGs got inside the missile envelope and 
peppered the US superjet with old fashioned bullets (big ones, but still bullets)
Everytime someone says, "that is obsolete", a use is usually found for it or more likely it 
was found to fill a niche that hasn't yet been filled by new stuff

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 01:48:27 +0000
From: Garry Ward <Garry.E.Ward@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Imperial Yacht

At 05:46 PM 4/14/97 +0000, you wrote:
><snip>

>...  I'm not sure about pressing
>random crewmembers into steward duty, however...one would imagine that
>serving royalty and honored guests of like rank would be *very* touchy
>business, and that a misplaced salad fork might lead to ruined diplomatic
>relations and perhaps open warfare.  I'm not sure I want the assistant
>jump tech laying out the silverware. :)
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
> --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
>   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
>       "Every man and every woman is a star."
>
>
Better yet; consider Imperial Marine Private "Shotgun" Harrier about the
third time that Lord Faut Leroi complains about the water temperature in the
'Fresher.

Garry

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 20:42:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: So what else is new and improved?

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, SD Mooney wrote:

> To date we have Starships, T4 itself, and First Survey all with hints that
> they are being revised and reissued. Is this the lot? 

Yes, that's it, except that when First Survey is reprinted, it will be 
hardbound with Milieu 0 (which will have the missing material that was 
left out of the first printing - deckplans for the Scout Cruiser, and so 
on), plus I'm told we (CORE) have permission to add a chapter on how to 
interpret UWP's, as well as how to read the FS data (i.e., what does 
"PBG" mean).  By interpret, I mean, "What is a planet with a small size, 
standard, untainted atmosphere, and 20 billion people likely to be like," 
"What does Gov type 8 with LL 0 mean"  and so on.  An aid to the 
imagination, obviously mostly for beginners.


> Are there any timescales for this yet?

Not that I know of. I know Marc and IG want to get T4 Deluxe out Real 
Soon Now.  I've heard May bandied about, but I dunno how realistic that 
is, given the amount of work involved in fixing that book.

I know we'll start working on M0/FS in May (soon as Stu and I are done 
with Psionic Institutes).  Should be able to get that done rather 
quickly, but I dunno when they'll be able to print it up.  Printing stuff 
up has some variables involved - money for one, distributor willingness 
to buy is another (i.e., if you print up four new books in one month, are 
the distributors going to buy them all in sufficient quantities?  or 
should you spread them out?).

As for Starships, I have no idea at all.  That one will be Marc's 
project, to my understanding, which means he won't be starting it until 
he's done with T4 Deluxe, at the earliest.


- -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: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 20:23:11 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: H2 Storage

At 09:24 am 04/14/97 -0600, you wrote:
>Hey guys!
>
>Have we just witnessed a real live TL advancement?
>
>Seems the need for such _large_ L-Hyd fuel tanks
>went out the window!!!!!
>
>Time to change QSDS/SSDS.

	One good reason for storing straight LH instead of embedding it in
fiber-tanks or straight water: MASS! 1 metric ton of LH may take up more
volume than 1 metric ton of H in H20 form, but it masses less--since the
mass ratio of hydrogen to oxygen in water is 1:8, to get 1t of LH you have
to carry NINE tons of water. There's a significant difference. Sure, my
fighter may need 14 cubic meters to store 1 ton of hydrogen, but I can do
that with a lot less MASS (even counting the tank dry mass) than your
fighter can with its 1 cubic meter of water. And since acceleration REALLY
depends on mass, not volume, I'm better off.
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 20:16:00 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: 2D starmaps

At 01:56 pm 04/14/97 +0100, you wrote:
>>The best fix that I've seen (which I've since incorporated) is to deem
>>the 2D star maps to be representations of jump space -- they show how
>>far apart the stars are in jump terms.  Who cares about how far light
>>has to travel to go from one to another (well, astrophysicists, but
>>the 2D maps are for purposes relating to transportation, not pure
>>science)?
>>
>>--Glenn
>
>A good solution but light propagation plays a role in some adventures and
>then it's neat to know how far apart two systems are for those
>calculations. Also when scanning for gasgiants at several parsecs one need
>to know the real distance between systems. All in all however its the best
>handwave so far. Curiously it has never been an issue with my players.

	Another question is how you get a one-to-one mapping from 3D to 2D (i.e.
each point in realspace corresponds to exactly one point in jumpspace, and
vice-versa).
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 23:13:47 -0400
From: russcm@zoomnet.net (Christopher M. Russell)
Subject: Re: Destroyer+Cruiser+BattleShip+DreadNaught

>
>In traveller, or failing that, in teh real world,  what distingushs a
>destroyer from a cruiser, is it just the roll it was built for or the
>tonnage or both?  If its tonnage what are the ranges for each class?
>Thanks!
>
I posted some info on that a while back based on info from Knight's Modern
Seamanship, 1941 and a few other texts. If you'd like, I can repost it.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 23:19:00 -0400
From: russcm@zoomnet.net (Christopher M. Russell)
Subject: Re: Earth approach (was: Re: IR Missiles)

>>Which brings me to my question: Could a TL 12 - 15 ship approach earth
>>in todays environment without being detected?
>>
>>If so, How?
>>
>>Bob
>>>>
>It could approach from behind the moon. Once past the moon, it could be
>picked up by Norad radar, but if it is aware of that system, then it
>could
>come in from the south polar region. Even if the radar was a threat,
>with tl
>12+ tech, it could be easily jammed, and Norad would simply blame it on
>a
>solar flare.
><<<
>
>Thanks for the information. With that in mind, how effective would the
>TL-12 EMM be to Norad, and what about other satellites (thermal?), and
>other countries watches, etc? And / or what type of difficulty roll
>would the PC's have to try. I have done this several times with
>different players, but after reading all the information on temperature
>in space it seems awfully hard to sneak up on a system like Sol. Much
>harder then I had made it!
>
>Bob

Someone approaching Earth would have another advantage on their side,
gravity. One could approach engines off, glide in, and use stored energy for
breaking.

As for EMM, I'd be hesitant to speculate. 

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 97 22:15:37 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Gravity Sails and Ether Propellers!

On 04/14/97 at 12:03 PM,  Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net> said:

> >Patrick O'Brien fans on TML, use your imagination.

> Might there be gravitic "currents" in places where space is not flat --
> that is, in-system?  The closer you get to a large gravitational mass,
> the faster/broader/more turbulent these currents.  This could mean that
> thrusters that depend on gravity might work better in some places than
> others, or in some directions than others.  This could set you up for
> age-of-sail-like maneuvering, where you try to get the "gravity gauge" on
> your opponent.  Just a thought.

Mike, take a look at David Weber's Honor Harrington stories.  His STL/FTL
is gravity based.  For FTL he uses "sails" in hyperspace to sail along
"gravity waves." His STL is based on a pair of wedges of ultra-high gravity
placed above and below the ship which squeeze it forward at several hundred
g..man those grav compensators must be GOOD! ;->  I find Weber's structure
compelling...and not all that far from Traveller conventions.

If you don't mind playing in an entirely different universe you might want
to look at Space 1889..not necessarily for the background, but for the
technological ideas.  There ether exists as a papable substance and ships
can use ether propellers (and with a tweek sails) to maneuver around a
system.  There isn't a FTL, but that *could* be jump.  

Someday, somehow, I'm going to run a campaign with ether screws!  That
would be  just *too* nifty for words. ;->

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 97 22:34:34 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing

On 04/14/97 at 11:15 AM,  Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net> said:

> > Yuk! Ptooie!  You should at least let them try, and describe the failure
> > and the reason it failed...
> [Eris' brilliant workaround snipped]

> Of course, and that's just what I'd do...though not as well as you,
> sounds like.  

Thank you, Sir! You are too kind.

> And as a one-off solution, it would work fine.  The problem
> is, if you do this sort of thing too often, the players *will* start to
> see the pattern that whenever they try something clever with
> game-universe physics and technology, it blows up in their faces, or
> doesn't work for far-fetched reasons.  And that *pattern* detracts from
> belief in the game universe.

Yes, that's true. As I also mentioned, I'd think long and hard about
allowing a beam of waste heat.  Heck, no, I wouldn't!  I'd say, "Oh sure!
Do you want a transporter with that too." ;->

> Mine too, and those are the ones I like to remember.  Some of my most
> embarrassingly horrible failures have come out of ad lib, too, though.
> Every scenario without exception will involve *some* ad lib, of course;
> I'd just prefer to keep the overall dramatic arc somewhere close to a
> route I've done *some* thinking about, most of the time.

Naturally, but I think the folks I've played with FTF *live* for making me
toss my plans into the air. ;-> That's OK, though, because they know I'll
toss curves right back at them.  

> > BTW, how'd you like my ad libs? ;->

> Wonderful.  I'd love to play in one of your games some time. :)

How do you feel about "Ether Propellers?"  I'm just going to *have* do that
one of these days!  

Actually, I'm thinking about a PBEM this summer, I'll put you on the list
of people that are interested if you want.  

I won't be using Thruster plates or much of the 'canon' background. I'm
leaning toward STL stutterwarp, AG/CG with very low thrust beyond low
orbit, FTL jump drive, and a couple of alternate energy technologies.  The
game will take place during *a* long (much longer) night, and center around
a exploratory merchant crew working on the Quental Main.  Something of a
swashbuckler.


Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 22:43:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com>
Subject: Re: What is Science? (was Re: Realism vs. Play Value)

Quoth Solomani, responding to Leonard Erickson:
> A point that people seem to miss (or is it the media) Scientists are
> human. Scientists lie, scientists bend arms, and argue to make there
> point, just like any other orginisation.

Yes.  That's one reason for refereed journals and the necessity for
reproducibility for any theory to be accepted -- to keep science free from
the personal biases of scientists.  :-)

> Also, the rules of scince change.

No.  The scientific method has remained fairly constant for centuries
(before you try it, Aristotle did not practice science).  The rules of
science remain the same, it's only our perceptions of the universe, and
our ever-closer approximations to it, which alter.

> The rules of the game at the moment are Einsteins, and his rules are
> built up on his predecossors ideas - but things can change, and
> usually quite suddenly.

No.  We only learn new rules for special cases.  Newton was not "wrong":
just imprecise.  We now have better rules for handling very small or very
fast objects... but Newton is as accurate as most folks need for everyday
ranges of speed and size.  As Leonard already said, Einstein's equations
simplify into Newton's for "normal" ranges of mass and speed.

> science can be wrong.  Actually it can be really wrong.

Science can be wrong about special cases.  But no-one is going to prove
tomorrow that gravity doesn't exist and doesn't pull things "down"-wards.
Or that changing magnetic fields don't produce electrical fields, etc.
Science builds upon its predecessors, it does not eat them.

- ----------------------------*------------------------*------------------------
 Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett  |"Nullum magnum ingenium | GURPS fan, Amiga user,
http://www.io.com/~jlockett | sine mixtura dementiae | Shakespearean scholar,
  Email: jlockett@io.com    | fuit." -- Seneca       | actor and director.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 97 22:46:21 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: NOVA

On 04/14/97 at 02:59 PM,  Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
said:

> Try reading Samuel R. Delaney's "Nova" sometime, for a feeling of what a
> far future tech could be. We're NOT talking about no %$#@ 'ten years in
> the future cyberpunk', we're talking 3000+ years!

Hey!  I remember "Nova!"  I've got a hardback copy on the bookshelf in the
back bedroom, read it 20 years ago. It was *good*, IIRC, I'll have to dust
it off and reread it.


Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 97 22:43:14 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Computer technology (going off topic a bit)

On 04/14/97 at 03:46 PM,  Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com> said:

> The shuttle first launched in 1981. The prototype, Enterprise, flew in
> 1977, if memory serves. The computer technology for Columbia, given these
> dates, should have been late 1970's because NASA's contractors would have
> improved upon Enterprise.

IIRC, NASA "froze" shuttle technology at 1971 levels so they could design
the platforms without having to chase the cutting edge of technology. The
thought was that Shuttle II could be designed in the 80's with late 70's
technology and come online shortly thereafter, followed by Shuttle III,
followed by...didn't work out that way.  

I blame Mondale and Proxmire for it all!  If they hadn't been so "pound
poor, penny rich" the Shuttle would have had a crewed and completely
reusable liquid fuel lower stage. The front end cost would have been
higher, but the operating costs would have been lower..the main engines
wouldn't have to throttle at over 100%, there would have been a complete
downrange recoverability, and the dang explosion wouldn't have happened.

Yeah, I get knots in my stomach just thinking about Mondale and Proxmire.


Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 97 22:58:18 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Tech talk

On 04/14/97 at 11:27 AM,  shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) said:

> Thruster plates are a different matter. They are hard to justify, and
> open up *way* too many cans of worms. While physics does have a few
> loopholes that would allow something *like* thrusters, they'd have to
> work rather differently. 

So, tell us how we pull off reactionless STL...and don't blow
Conservation^3?


Eris

- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 00:03:23 -0400
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

ohn Snead jsnead@netcom.com  wrote:
>>>
My only question is whether there is a similarly nifty way to do visual
output? Audio output can be handled through a medium-sized earring with
a bone conduction speaker (on the back of the earring where it touches
the head. But I can see any) way to do visual output w/o screens or
holofields. 
<<<

That is realitively simple. The military is working on a low powered
laser that can direct a very low powered beam into the eye, to the nerve
endings. Thus generating a much more realistic picture and much better
quality. All you need is a pair of glasses, or something, to hold the
emitter.

At least that is what I remember reading a couple of years ago. Anybody
know if this could work?

Bob

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 23:12:07 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com>
Subject: Re: Conservation (was Re: IR masking)

Quoth Leonard Erickson:
> Nice try, but no cigar. If it *was* "pushing" on the star, then the
> enery required to increase your velocity would increase as your
> velocity increased. That is, if it took X to get to 1 km/s, it'd take
> *4X* to get to 2 km/s, and 9X to get to 3 km/s.
> That's a *massively* losing proposition.

Maybe here is the solution to the killer lifeboat problem?  A bit of my
rusty old calculus gives a ship's velocity v = (2Pt/m)^0.5, where t is the
number of seconds of continuous thrust, m the mass in kg of the ship
itself, and P the power being applied continuously to the thruster plates.
(Obviously, this assumes 100% efficiency, which our photon-producing
plates do not achieve.  Season to taste).

An earlier step in the process yielded dv/dt = (T/(2mt))^0.5, so, sure
enough, under continuous thrust, as t goes to infinity, dv/dt (the rate
of change of velocity with respect to time, aka acceleration) goes to 0.
Thruster plates, according to their current definition, have a "speed
limit" of sorts which they should approach asymptotically.  I don't have
any books handy to check the figures: is the speed limit a reasonable one?
This is complicated for regular use, but I kind of like the feel of it!

For those interested in the math nastiness, or who want to see if I've
made any mistakes:

Let m and M be the masses of the ship and star, and v and V their
velocities.  Let E be the energy introduced into the ship-star system
by the thruster plates (itself described by P*t, t in seconds and
representing the time of thrust applied).

We must conserve momentum, so mv = -MV.  And, as Leonard pointed out, we
have to conserve energy (fusion power transformed into kinetic energy of
both star and ship, here), so E = 0.5*MV^2 + 0.5*mv^2.

So, 0.5*mv^2 = E - 0.5*MV^2

    v^2 = 2E/m - (M/m)V^2
        = 2E/m - (M/m)(mv/M)^2 from momentum conservation.
        = 2E/m - (m/M)v^2

Time to corral those v's again:

    v^2 + (m/M)v^2  = 2E/m
    v^2 * (1 + m/M) = 2E/m

Now, note that, for just about any case you can name, m << M, that is, a
ship is of insignificant mass next to a star (I believe I quoted ballpark
figures of 1E6 kg for a small ship next to 1E30 kg for a Sun-like star:
twenty-four orders of magnitude is a lot!).  So (1 + m/M) is as close to
one as makes no difference, and without introducing any significant error
we can just write v^2 = 2E/m.  So:

   v = (2E/m)^.5

   dv/dt = 0.5 * (2E/m)^-0.5 * 2/m * dE/dt

Now, dE/dt, accourding to our earlier definitions, is a constant: it's the
rate at which energy is being continuously introduced into the system by
the thruster plates.  So dE/dt can simply be written P.  Which gives us:

   dv       P           P          P^0.5     (  P  )^0.5
   -- = --------- = ---------- = --------- = (-----)
   dt   (2Em)^0.5   (2Ptm)^0.5   (2mt)^0.5   ( 2mt )

And integrating gives us v = (2Pt/m)^0.5.  Voila.

- ----------------------------*------------------------*------------------------
 Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett  |"Nullum magnum ingenium | GURPS fan, Amiga user,
http://www.io.com/~jlockett | sine mixtura dementiae | Shakespearean scholar,
  Email: jlockett@io.com    | fuit." -- Seneca       | actor and director.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 97 06:35:52 +0200
From: marino@inrete.it (Paolo Marino)
Subject: JOT & Experience

 
I've a question for the list, regarding experience advancement. It's
really independent from the system you use (T4, revised T4, KBv2.X,
Yatts whatever).

According to the rules, players may test advancement for skill
used in an adventure. Being a "wildcard" skill, JOT will be used
fairly often, and therefore will be probably eliglible for skill
testing. Just consider someone which has JOT but hasn't Perception,
for example.

Even if you aren't a powergamer, the idea of advancing such a
versatile skill will probably seem a good one, and I expect people to
apply a lot of their experience checks towars JOT advancement.

What do you suggest? Do you allow JOT checks when it is used as
replacement for toher skills? And if this is not the case, when (if
at all) do you allow checking for it? Can you describe a legitimate
use of JOT as a skill in itself?

            

__  Paolo Marino  __          |Inrete Games Page: www.inrete.it/games/gms.html
 mc4799@mclink.it (Preferred)  | marino@inrete.it (Best for MIME/BinHex)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 97 23:32:58 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: So what else is new and improved?

On 04/14/97 at 08:42 PM,  "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
said:

> Not that I know of. I know Marc and IG want to get T4 Deluxe out Real 
> Soon Now.  I've heard May bandied about, but I dunno how realistic that 
> is, given the amount of work involved in fixing that book.

Joe, I've looked on the IG webpage and didn't find a place to order the T4
Deluxe hardback.  Could you tell me exactly where and how to place that
order?

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1194
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest      Tuesday, April 15 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1195



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re:  Norris' sexual orientation
Re: Brilliant Idea From Nick Munn
Re: WIZARDS OF THE COAST TO ACQUIRE TSR INC.
[Off Topic] The Fifth Element
Re: What is Science? (was Re: Realism vs. Play Value)
Re: ATTENTION ATTENTION
Re: IRC start times
Re: What is Science? (was Re: Realism vs. Play Value)
Re: 2D starmaps
The low-tech 6th millenium
Re: What is Science? (was Re: Realism vs. Play Value)
Re: IR Masking
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Re: [TML] Backmans partial space combat system

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 97 23:29:47 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re:  Norris' sexual orientation

On 04/14/97 at 09:20 PM,  Steven K Pritchard <spritch@cinternet.net> said:

> I personally believe that Norris just never found the right woman.  Just
> because his closest friend was a MALE psionic seneschal doesn't make him
> gay! <G>

Ah, come on guys!  Do you have to "out" Norris?  Let the Duke's sexual
preference remain undefined, then we GM's can do whatever we like with it. 


Besides, Norris is *really* a TL18 robot put in place by the Templars, the
Zhodine, or the Darrians. It's controller is obviously the senechal, and
there's an obvious reason why it doesn't engage in sexual
encounters...whoever built him forgot a little something. <g>

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 97 23:09:56 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Brilliant Idea From Nick Munn

Why make it so complicated?

Skill levels are useful during character generation, but we don't need to
carry them over into game play.  Here's a more simple idea: Everytime a
single point of experience is earned...(a) increase the Point and Asset
total by 1; (b) divide the Points by 3, rounded down for the current Skill
Level.

Example: 

Just after character generation...

Attribute = 7

Skill     Level  Points    Asset
Pilot       2       6    6 + 7 = 13

After earning two points of skill...

Level = 8/3,dn = 2.67 = 2

Skill     Level  Points    Asset
Pilot       2       8    8 + 7 = 15


After earning one more point of skill...

Level = 9/3,dn = 3

Skill     Level  Points    Asset
Pilot       3       9    9 + 7 = 15


Eris

- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 00:54:00 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: WIZARDS OF THE COAST TO ACQUIRE TSR INC.

Andrew Boulton writes: 

>Just thought people might be interested...
>
>WIZARDS OF THE COAST TO ACQUIRE TSR INC.

   This story is legit.  I checked out TSR's Web site and they confirmed
it.  Here is some additional info from TSR:
- -------------------------------------------
Ramifications?

Right now, we still don't have a whole lot of information. However,
there are certain questions that can be answered right now.

What does this mean for AD&D?
AD&D is a valuable commodity for which Wizards is certain to want to
continue to produce products.

What about the late products & magazines?
It is most likely that shipping will resume once the negotiations
between the two companies are completed (estimated 6-8 weeks).

What about Gen Con?
Gen Con will take place on schedule in Milwaukee.

What about Gen Con program books & housing forms?
They will still be going out in May.

How come the web site said that TSR wasn't being bought, but it actually
was?
Because only upper management of the two companies knew what was going
on; everything else was rumor and supposition.

Other than for these questions, we don't have any answers at this time.
In other words, if you don't see the answer to your question here, the
answer is 

"We don't know yet."

When we get answers, they will be posted here (sorry, we won't be making
personal replies because the volume of repeat questions is going to be
very high). Until then, please don't bombard us with questions we can't
answer. We know the most common questions; we'll give answers when we
get them.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

   It would appear that GDW has been avenged.  It also appears that
TSR's name will be fading away.  I'd like to say they'll be missed--I
would be lying.  While TSR did give the world many hours of
entertainment (including a few here and there for me), they also engaged
in business practices (especially early on) that were of a questionable
nature.  While these tactics served to secure TSR's market position,
they also made the RPG industry less robust, keep prices at a premium,
and ultimately help to lead to TSR's own apparent demise.  The next few
days and months should prove interesting.

Regards,

Harold

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 97 23:17:23 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: [Off Topic] The Fifth Element

I went to see a movie Friday and saw the Second trailer for _The Fifth 
Element_. I had seen the first a few times (well, I saw the Star Wars 
Trilogy a few times ;-) and thought, "Ho-hum a floating 5."

But now, after seeing the second I think "Wow... Coooool!" There's no 
dialog, just a montage of lots of shots, including Grav-traffic flying 
around skyscrapers. The visuals were stunning. Of "Blade Runner" quality, 
but not nearly so dark. Bright and flashy.

I bring it up because it really reminded me of what I imagined a High-pop 
TL-11 Traveller city might look like. The grav cars *looked* like 
grav-cars.

And then there was the last shot... what looked like a near-c 
relativistic rock heading towards the earth... :->

===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 97 23:17:19 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: Re: What is Science? (was Re: Realism vs. Play Value)

In a message dated 1997-04-14 18:24, Solomani wrote:

>> You see, "science" is nothing more (and nothing *less*!) than the
>> *only* RELIABLE means of forecasting the future that we have
>> discovered. 
>
>A point that people seem to miss (or is it the media) Scientists are
>human. Scientists lie, scientists bend arms,
>and argue to make there point, just like any other orginisation.  They
>disagree and agree on various points and theories.  Also, the rules of
>scince change.  The rules of the game at the moment are Einsteins, and his
>rules are built up on his predecossors ideas - but things can change, and
>usually quite suddenly.
>
>Please dont get me wrong Leonard, all the points you made were valid, and
>we really dont have anything beyond science for things like space battles
>etc, but science can be wrong.  Actually it can be really wrong.

I think you've made a hasty generalization. Science isn't "an 
organization". Scientists do not (as a group) "lie". They don't 
(generally) come up with fabricated facts to fit their "theories". There 
are bad apples in every profession, but well established scientific 
theories do not turn out to be plain "wrong".

To use your example of Einstein, his theories did not prove Newton's Laws 
wrong, they only proved Newton's Laws to be an approximation, a *subset* 
of Relativity, reasonably accurate within certain parameters.

I agree with Leonard in that certain well established laws (The 3 Laws of 
Thermo spring to mind) which are known to be true in all known 
circumstances, should not be violated without a *lot* of thought to the 
consequences.

I think it takes a lot more imagination to find a way to advance the plot 
of the story by adhering to how the universe works, then just chalking it 
up to "magic".

On the other hand, If you don't realize that you're violating some 
physical law in some way, and no one else does (or cares), have fun.

But the main reason why I subscribe to this list is for the "reality 
check" people like Leonard and many others give me. And the many weird 
and wacky ideas that make it though that "reality check" in *my* head, 
which may or may not be the same as everyone on this list.

So to those scientists on the list, (physical, social, and armchair) 
carry on!

I'm listening...



===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 22:24:00 +0000
From: "Suzette C. Dollar" <suzd@pop.goodnet.com>
Subject: Re: ATTENTION ATTENTION

> JD (AKA Twolf)             twolf@unix.tfs.net

It should be      twolf@tfs.net
for some reason it sometimes throws in the unix, I don't know why.

Suz

Suzette C. Dollar
#traveller Channel Manager
suzd@goodnet.com

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 22:26:21 +0000
From: "Suzette C. Dollar" <suzd@pop.goodnet.com>
Subject: Re: IRC start times

> I would approve.  As a west coast person, an 8pm start time is 5 here.
> Work gets a bit excited at the "Sorry, must go.  Hot IRC session..."
> commetn about 4:30.  One that starts at 6 our time is possible.

Right!  Since AZ is now CA time :-)  Thanks for your support.  Yours 
is the only comment to date.  I'll check on Thursday, then prolly 
change it.  I changed it arbitrarily last time, because at the time, 
there were about five of us regulars :-)

Suz
 

Suzette C. Dollar
#traveller Channel Manager
suzd@goodnet.com

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 16:57:26 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: What is Science? (was Re: Realism vs. Play Value)

On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Joseph Chepe Lockett wrote:

> Yes.  That's one reason for refereed journals and the necessity for
> reproducibility for any theory to be accepted -- to keep science free from
> the personal biases of scientists.  :-)

:)

> 
> > Also, the rules of scince change.
> 
> No.  The scientific method has remained fairly constant for centuries
> (before you try it, Aristotle did not practice science).  The rules of
> science remain the same, it's only our perceptions of the universe, and
> our ever-closer approximations to it, which alter.
> 

How was Aristotle, "not a scientists" for all intents and purposes?
Because the definition didnt exist then?  I disagree whole heartedly.
Aristotelian science was around for almost 2500 years until the time of
galileo and his contemporaries and academic descendents.

He followed the Empirical method, so his a scientist.

> No.  We only learn new rules for special cases.  Newton was not "wrong":
> just imprecise.  We now have better rules for handling very small or very
> fast objects... but Newton is as accurate as most folks need for everyday
> ranges of speed and size.  As Leonard already said, Einstein's equations
> simplify into Newton's for "normal" ranges of mass and speed.

I disagree (again, this is a habit with me :)  But since you wont accept
aristotle as an example of science being wrong, how about phlogiston, that
was wrong, where was the new rule for that?  How about (his name escapes
me) <blank>  just after galileo and copernicous, he said that the sun goes
around the earth, but everything else goes around the sun.  That was just
plain wrong.

> 
> > science can be wrong.  Actually it can be really wrong.
> 
> Science can be wrong about special cases.  But no-one is going to prove
> tomorrow that gravity doesn't exist and doesn't pull things "down"-wards.
> Or that changing magnetic fields don't produce electrical fields, etc.
> Science builds upon its predecessors, it does not eat them.

True, i cant imagine gravity being disregarded tomorrow, but it wouldnt
surprise me if it was changed or disregarded in the future.  Whos to say
that when we reach the speed of light (or if) that something completely
different happens.  

Another example, the double helix genetic model that
people are use to, anyone who does advanced studies into biology (spec.
genetics) will tell you that multiple models exist for it, its just that
the double helix is the easiest to understand and "works".

Ive even heard heated debate between physcists about the existence of the
electron (or proton, cant remember).  If scientists argue over premises
that we take for granted, then what makes you think that science cant be 
"wrong" about a field of things?  

Please dont misunderstand me, im not flaming you or writing you off, its
just that your average joe puts a little to much faith into science for
little reason.

PaChi,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


No compromise, No regrets

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 97 00:00:49 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: Re: 2D starmaps

In a message dated 1997-04-14 20:16, David J. Golden wrote:

>	Another question is how you get a one-to-one mapping from 3D to 2D (i.e.
>each point in realspace corresponds to exactly one point in jumpspace, and
>vice-versa).

That's it! A reason for misjumps!

Gravitational wells restrict the map from realspace-->jumpspace. 
One-to-one correspondence does not exist. So a misjump is a ship 
"approximating" the closest match, the position selected in jumpspace 
maps to an unintended destination in realspace.

===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 23:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: The low-tech 6th millenium

Bruce Johnson asks:

> We have advanced what, two, three tech levels in this century alone in
> many areas, so why is the assumption made that the future looks so much
> like today, or that what we percieve as limits are in fact true limits?
> 
> Why do I get the feeling that, to many people, the world of Traveller
> resembles nothing so much as a 1960's GM pipe dream with better art?

I've said this before, rather recently, and won't repeat it next time this
issue comes up, but...

Traveller needs to be playable by newbies who wander into a room, get a
20-minute briefing on background by a distracted GM, then start into their
first scenario.  For that to work, Traveller *has* to be "late 20th
century industrialized Terra, plus J-drive, gravitics, and better power
sources."  Not merely the technology, but the sociology and the
(rudimentary) economics have to be, at root, here and now with minor
tweaks.

A good, daring SF story can attempt to portray what society *might* be
like in just a few decades or centuries, if the tech curve continues its
exponential climb.  Vinge's _Across Realtime_ comes to mind, Varley's
"Ten Worlds" future history, Stephensons's _The Diamond Age_, and a few
others accomplish this, but it's tought to pull off -- because the
characters in the novel have utterly different knowledge and assumptions
about the world than the reader does.  Of the works mentioned above, only
Varley just tosses the reader in to sink or swim; Stephenson starts his
protagonist as a very young girl, whose education and socialization the
reader gets to share, and Vinge contrives to include some late-1990s
viewpoint characters who can ask questions about things the reader needs
to have explained.  This strategey can be used in roleplaying as well, but
it doesn't tend to translate well.

Running a *really* advanced/different society is extremely hard on the GM
as well, as he ends up having to hold an entirely self-consistent
alternate society in his head and/or notebook -- and, unlike an author,
his players can throw random curveballs at him, to which he must react
without more than a few moments of preparation.  Given how few authors can
handle the arguably easier task of crafting a society populated by
characters they themselves control, one can extrapolate that the number of
GMs capable of doing justice to such a campaign is *very* small.

So, yes, it's absurd that the Third Imperium looks so much like California
ca. 1997.  But there's no real choice in the matter.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 18:23:40 +1000 (EST)
From: Solomani <solomani@aic.net.au>
Subject: Re: What is Science? (was Re: Realism vs. Play Value)

On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Glenn Hoppe wrote:

> In a message dated 1997-04-14 18:24, Solomani wrote:
> I think you've made a hasty generalization. Science isn't "an 
> organization". Scientists do not (as a group) "lie". They don't 
> (generally) come up with fabricated facts to fit their "theories". There 
> are bad apples in every profession, but well established scientific 
> theories do not turn out to be plain "wrong".
[snip]

Theories can and DO turn out to be wrong, thats whay there Theories and
not Laws.  

Its not a generalisation at all.  Scientists are human, when they band
together they make a human orginisation, what pray tell, is the difference
between a small corporation and a band of scientists in an orginisational
sense?

They argue, they make deals, they bend arms - heck they'lll even lie and
cheat if there character is like that.  Science works like most other
human orginisations.  Compromise and tradeoffs.  Just read "The double
Helix" for a prime example of what im talking about.

[snip]
> But the main reason why I subscribe to this list is for the "reality 
> check" people like Leonard and many others give me. And the many weird 
> and wacky ideas that make it though that "reality check" in *my* head, 
> which may or may not be the same as everyone on this list.

Smae reason as me, i learned a lot from the fighter vs bb debate because
there are a lot of different specialists on the list.  So do carry on by
all means.

Peace,

michl

electric RAIN					http://www.electric-rain.net/


I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when looked at
in the right way, did not become still more complicated.
			          			   -Poul Anderson.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:25:33 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: IR Masking

>I'm pretty sure that they'd come up to 300 K fast enough to make this
>not all that useful -- but damn it, that's such a great image I say we
>ignore thermodynamics and go with it! :)

If they weren't using any power they'd be at whatever temp equilibrium the
central star would give them possible even stay at 3K if in planetary
shadow.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 15:31:59 -0700
From: Danny_M._Moody@mailhost.bridge.com (Danny M. Moody)
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

     

>One of my gripes with cyberpunk is how unlikely some of it is. 

Not only that, but how 'low-tech' it is.  3000 yrs is a long time; long enough 
to get rid of those messy wires and electrodes implanted in your head (yech!).

>In addition to using this for hand computers, the headband or choker alone
>could also be standard equipment for daily life (well decorated and
>stylish for the rich) which would automatically interface with most common
>devices. Think advanced. 

Wearing your technology is the way to go.  All this will be donned with no more 
thought than the average person straps on a wristwatch, and will be as easy to 
handle.  someone (a while back) posted an idea for a 'computer cloth' that could
be cut and sewn, that was imprinted with circuits and cpu's.  Might want to 
search the archives for that...

>My only question is whether there is a similarly nifty way to do visual
>output? Audio output can be handled through a medium-sized earring with a
>bone conduction speaker (on the back of the earring where it touches the
>head. But I can see any) way to do visual output w/o screens or
>holofields. 

How about holoprojectors on the headband that transmits directly into the eye, 
or using special contacts that act as data output devices?

- -Vanya

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:23:57 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: [TML] Backmans partial space combat system

>< At 10:37 am 04/12/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>Anybody interested in looking at it mail me for a copy (it's about 15K
>>straight ascii) as I thought it was too big for mailing on the list
>>directly.
>>
>I would like a copy of this too: mbradley@exec.swrcb.ca.gov

Here you go:

>Intercept
>=========
>These rules are very compact and brief so if you do not understand a certain
>part quote it and mail me a question at anders.backman@aniware.se
>
>Backmans double blind sensorrules
>===========================================================================
>======
>This document is a very much simplified part of my Traveller space combat rules
>system. It can be used by any reasonably detailed design system with some work.
>I have skipped on my gravity rules, rules for stable orbits, to hit, damage,
>aerobrake et c because they are too designsystem specific and frankly to hard
>to explain without pictures.
>
>Here's a short example of what is possible with this system:
>The players wants to sneak onto Victoria without the interdiction satellites
>detecting them. The GM runs the satellites and the by the players unknown
>Survey cruiser. The players succeed in exiting jumpspace inside Victorias
>planetary shadow and they stay with PP on idle, popup antennas popped down and
>floorfield off for minimal sig. They wait until Victorias moon Albert passes
>around and when 3 of the interdiction sats are blocked by Albert they fire up
>the PP, thrusts a little and continues gliding towards victoria. They aerobrake
>in Victorias atmosphere as they swing onto the sunside of victoria, ready for
>landing. Before entering the atmosphere for good they dare a quick popup of
>their PEMS but see nothing. No combat, no deaths but still a pretty exciting
>session.
>
>Conventions
>===========
>Dice
>Only D6 dice are used throughout and I have some special rules for making it
>possible to succeed at rolling 13+ and also to fail a 2+ roll on 2D6.
>I will denote all rolls that are possible to increase/decrease with a
>capital D.
>If 12 on 2D6 was rolled, roll 1D6, if 5+ add 1 to result and
>continue rolling this 1D6 until the 5+ roll fails.
>Rolling low is basically the same. Roll 2 on 2D6, then roll 1D6 for 2- and
>continue until failure. Each 2- roll lowers the score by 1.
>
>Logarithms
>I use logarithmic values all the time in my rules but and the most common one
>is listed below:
>
>Value  Log(Value)
>0.5+   -4
>1.5+   -3
>5+     -2
>15+    -1
>50+    0
>150+   1
>500+   2
>1500+  3 et c
>Remember when dealing with logs that adds of logs are equivalent to multiplies
>and subtractions to divisions, +2 equals multiply by 10 and -2 divide by 10 in
>this scale. Ranges follow the same progression:
>1.5 squares, 5 squares, 15 squares, 50 squares et c.
>This logscale is used throughout but with different base values. The one above
>has a base value of 50 which means that 50 equals 0.
>
>Facings and grid
>================
>I use a square grid myself for all maps be it space combat, brawls et c and I
>always use the same facing sectors to divide the plane into 8 similarly sized
>sectors. Those using hexgrids can use six sectors but some of the rules
>regarding blind and semiblind sectors might not work in that case.
>When calculating range for all purposes treat all diagonals as 1.5 squares and
>round the final range down. OK the facing sectors look like this:
>Mark your own location, the first square away from it N, E, W or S is 1 wide,
>squares 2 to 3 away are 3 wide, squares 4, 5 and 6 are 5 wide like this:
>
>                  x x x
>              x x x x x
>        x x x x x x x x
>    x x x x x x x x x x
>o x x x x x x x x x x x
>    x x x x x x x x x x
>        x x x x x x x x
>              x x x x x
>                  x x x
>o
>  x
>    x x
>    x x x x x
>      x x x x x x
>      x x x x x x x x x
>      x x x x x x x x x
>        x x x x x x x x
>        x x x x x x x x
>          x x x x x x x
>          x x x x x x x
>          x x x x x x x
>
>Or put it another way: Go one right, one right and one up, two right and one
>up, three right and one up, two right and one up. Alternate between two and
>three for each step to get it done. If this is hard to follow then use whatever
>sectors you like as long as they are 8 more or less equally sized arcwise. I
>have printed these sectors on overhead film but I rarely use them as I know the
>progression by heart.
>
>My game has MUCH smaller scale to space combat, sensor ranges et c because I
>want to hide behind planetary shadows, aerobrake in atmospheres while fighting
>et c but these rules work with any size squares as long as one sticks to them.
>My squares are 1000 km wide which gives you gameturns of aproximately 5 minutes
>and a thrust vector of 1G is 1 square.
>
>When calculating ranges on a square grid count each diagonal square as 1.5 and
>round down whendone tracing range. This is surprisingly close to pythagoras
>the expected value.
>
>Needed shipstats
>================
>There are some statistics that are required for each target and should be
>precomputed when designing the ship/missile/whatever. Notice that certain
>signatures only are detectable if certain things are in use, others vary
>depending on the level of activity of said device. I normally calculate sigs
>for full use and off but one could calculate powerplant sigs for 100% power and
>10% idle for instance (10% is imply -2 from full due to the logarithmic
>scale). I use four different signatures for each target, the signatures
>are: Active EMS
>or AEMS, Passive EMS or PEMS, Neutrino and Mass.
>
>AEMS: Use surface area/6 or volume^(2/3) if there's no radar area in the
>design system used. Targets with stealth material surface should have
>their area
>severely diminished, perhaps by x0.1, x0.01 or even x0.001
>Base value for radar is 50 m2 or
>Area(m2)       AEMS-signature
>15+            -1
>50+            0
>150+           1
>500+           2
>1500+          3 et c
>
>PEMS: Passive EMS get their readings from IR venting from Powerplants,
>reflected light from star(s), rocket plume from reactionthrusters.
>Power(MW)      PEMS-signature
>15+            -1
>50+            0
>150+           1
>500+           2
>1500+          3 et c
>
>Area(m2)       PEMS-signature
>50+            -4
>150+           -3
>500+           -2
>1500+          -1
>5000+          0
>15000+         1
>50000+         2
>150000+        3
>The light from star(s) is added later in the system, therefore the low sig
>here. This sig is the ships reflected sig if in planetary shadow. Stealth
>material hulls and black hulls should perhaps modify this by -2. The light from
>the central star is about +6 in the hospitable zone, +1 for each orbit closer
>and -1 for each orbit further out. The sunfactor never goes below 0 however as
>this is postulated as the background radiation. A detailed formula is:
>Sunfactor = 2xlog10(L/R^2)
>L=Luminosity relative Sol, R=planetary orbit in AUs
>
>Thrust(ton)    PEMS-signature (my system uses different values for diff. types)
>This is the sig for HEPLAR, Fusion, Chem rockets etc but not Thrusters.
>0.015          -1
>0.05           0
>0.15           1
>0.5            2
>1.5            3
>5              4
>15             5
>50             6
>150            7
>500            8
>1500           9
>5000           10
>15000          11 et c
>
>Neutrino: Neutrino sensor is definately the most important sensor in Travller
>both because it can be mounted under the armor and because it is so hard
>to shield neutrinos and everybody uses fusion powerplants. Neutrinos come from
>fission/fusion powerplants and fission/fusion thrusters.
>Power(MW)      NEUT-signature
>15+            -1
>50+            0
>150+           1
>500+           2
>1500+          3 et c
>Notice that for fusion/fission plants the neutrino sig is the same as the
>PEMS-sig for powerplants. Makes the rules a bit easier to use.
>
>Thrust(ton)    NEUT-signature
>Only fission and fusion thrusters have these sigs. The fairy tale HEPLAR is
>supposed to work on chemical principles alone and thus have no NEUT sig.
>15+            -1
>50+            0
>150+           1
>500+           2
>1500+          3 et c
>Notice that for fusion/fission thrusters the neutrino sig is the same as the
>PEMS-sig for thrusters - 6. Makes the rules a bit easier to use.
>
>Mass: Mass is hard to cloak and an important signature in my Traveller,
>especially if the targets use antigravity/thrusterplates or floorfield/inertial
>compensators. Note that because of some technobabble my gravscanner sensors has
>to be mounted outside of the hull just like AEMS and PEMS.
>Mass(ton)      MASS-signature
>150+           -1
>500+           0
>1500+          1
>5000+          2
>15000+         3 et c
>
>Thrust(ton)    MASS-signature
>15+            -1
>50+            0
>150+           1
>500+           2
>1500+          3 et c
>Notice that mass sig for antigrav/thrusterplates is the same as the
>PEMS-sig for thrusters. Makes the rules a bit easier to use.
>
>Volume(m3)     MASS-signature
>15+            -1
>50+            0
>150+           1
>500+           2
>1500+          3 et c
>This is the mass signature from floorfield/inertial compensators. It is based
>on the volume compensated. Actually I base it on volume x Gs compensated but
>that might be too detailed for some referees.
>
>Example:
>The scoutship in TNE is 1400 m3 which gives a surface of ca 125 m2. It masses
>685 tons loaded. The powerplant is a 138 MW fusion plant and it has a HEPLAR
>drive with ca 1370 tons thrust. Lets say it is inertially comped. and living
>area is 500 m3 in size. Lets rate this ship:
>AEMS:  0
>PEMS:  0 Power         -4 Reflected    8 Thrust
>NEUT:  0 Power
>MASS:  0 Mass          2 Antigrav      2 Inertial compensators
>
>
>Rating sensors
>==============
>There are four different types of sensors in my campaign namely:
>Active EMS, Passive EMS, Neutrino and Mass detectors. I use my own design
>system so those converting from FF&S can use the guidelines to below to rate
>their sensors. AEMS are both optical sensors (telescopes) and infrared bunched
>together for simplicity. One could have separate sensors for this but it adds
>to complexity with nothing much gained in realism.
>
>AEMS
>Range(squares)        Factor
>1-                    -8
>5-                    -4
>15-                    0
>50-                    4
>150-                   8
>500-                   12 et c
>
>PEMS, NEUT and MASS
>Range(squares)        Factor
>1-                    -4
>5-                    -2
>15-                   0
>50-                   2
>150-                  4
>500-                  6 et c
>
>Rating HighGuard designs: There are no sensors in HG so a quick and dirty
>ruling has to be made regarding that. Give each ship AEMS and PEMS ratings of
>computer model nbr - 6. Add size figure from USP for this (if size is less than
>1 use -1 if 10dTon or more, -2 if not). The sensors are assumed to be included
>in the computer price and the bonus for size is the larger surface area for
>antennas. Give large military vessels NEUT and MASS sensors with factors 2 less
>than AEMS/PEMS. Large scouts have NEUT and MASS with without reduction and
>merchants never have anything but AEMS/PEMS (well, maybe Leviathan could find
>uses for a weak NEUT sensor for detecting fusion plants).
>
>Example: The scout in TNE has a 5 hex PEMS, 10 hex AEMS. The densitometer and
>neutrinodetector I have no idea what their ranges are so I will not rate them.
>AEMS:  -2
>PEMS:  0
>
>Sequence of play
>================
>Drift
>Movement
>Sensors
>Combat
>
>Drift
>=====
>Move all ships according to their vector and adjust for gravity effects. Note
>that ships with antigrav units should be able to choose wether gravity affects
>them or not (shouldn't they?). Use Mayday or Battle Rider movement or even BL
>if you can stand the ugly system (borrowed from SPI DeltaVee I think).
>
>I plot my ships moves on a graph paper with 5 mm squares and simply mark an x
>where the ship should be if it didn't thrust.
>
>For gravity effects I calculate several gravity bands by calculating:
>R = 6.4xSQRT(M/A) where M is planet mass and A=0.25 for the limit of 0.5G,
>A=0.75 for the limit of 1G, A=1.5 for the limit of 2G et c. When a ships
>previous location is within a
>gravity band move his drifted location by the amount and direction for the
>previous location. 0.5 G only produce a 1G gravity vector on even turns.
>My gravthrusters/contragrav has thrust egual to designed thrust times local
>gravity so orbital fighters with contragrav can zoom close to planets and
>really get a boost from the planets gravity field.
>
>Movement
>========
>All tracked targets move first. The order within this group is determined with
>a Pilot task roll, highest goes last.
>All untracked targets plot their movement secretly. Note that all ships move
>before any combat take place. This is to avoid the TOTALLY unrealistic effect
>that BL, Mayday etc had by allowing each ship to move and fire in turn.
>
>Sensors
>=======
>Well the rules for sensor plotting may seem strange and complex but are
>actually quite simple and has the benefit of doing away with bogey markers et
>c. You are totally undetected until someone sees you which can be great fun
>when running past customs, doing pearl harbor like attacks etc.
>Each player plots where his sensors will look for targets secretly or a
>competitive Task roll with Fleet tactics decides. Highest result goes last as
>this is advantageous. Sensorscans is basically performed by choosing a square
>called the scanpoint away from your ship, modifying the sensors factor for the
>range to the scanpoint, choosing one of two possible radii around the scanpoint
>and modify factor accordingly.
>Tell the opponent the sensor type (AEMS, PEMS, NEUT or MASS),factor, scanpoint
>and radius. The opponent checks if any of his ships/missiles are within the
>radius and if so; adds the sensors factor to all of his relevant sigs and sees
>if any of these sigs sums is 0 or higher.
>
>There are two sizes; small or normal.
>Normal: Radius is the range to the scanpoint - 1.
>Small: Radius is the range to the scanpoint divided by 2.
>It is entirely legal for players to use smaller radii than those allowed in
>order to fool the opponent about the range between sensing ship and scanpoint.
>All squares within the scanned area has to be visible to the scanning ship to
>be legal, move scanpoint or reduce radius if not. This is the single most
>common error my players do when playing this system so be careful.
>
>Modifications to sensorfactor
>The sensorfactor is modified by three different circumstances:
>
>Range to scanpoint affects the factor differently for passive and active
>sensors:
>Range(squares) Passive Active
>1-             +4      +8
>5-             +2      +4
>15-             0       0
>50-            -2      -4
>150-           -4      -8
>
>Small or normal sensorscan
>Pin*    +6
>Small   +2
>Normal  +0
>*Pin is when you scan in such a tight beam so that only one square is searched.
>When tracking an enemy with lock on at the limits of your sensors range it is
>easy to use Pin as they have to tell you where they'll go before you decide on
>where to put your scancenters.
>
>Skill level of the sensoroperator (optional)
>Roll a task in whatever task system used:
>(these modifiers are set to discourage using this task unless highly skilled)
>Result                         Modifier
>Exceptional success            +2
>Success                         0
>Failure                        -2
>Exceptional failure            -4
>
>Sunfactor (optional but really fun to use)
>==========================================
>The sun or suns affect sensors and add some interesting tactical complications
>to space combat. The direction to the sun is important because sensorscans in
>that direction are harder for obvious reasons. The sun also affects a targets
>reflective signature making it easier to detect if illuminated by the sun(s).
>If the system consists of one star choose a direction where the sun lies (I
>always use North as sundirection for ease of play). Close binaries will
>probably be in the same direction and far binaries will have only one of the
>stars giving off signinficant light.
>To calculate the sunfactor from a particular star use this formula, treat
>negative results as 0 because I choose background illumination to be 0:
>S = 2*log10(L/R^2) + 6
>S = sunfactor, L = starts luminosity, R = distance to star in AU
>If you're lazy (or in a hurry) you can use 6 + orbit number distance from
>hospitable, + for inner system and - for outer system. The result will be more
>or less the same as you can see below for the solar system:
>
>Planet         SF
>==============
>Mercury        8
>Venus          7
>Earth          6
>Mars           5
>Asteroids      4
>Jupiter        3 etc
>
>A ships reflective PEMS sig is actually the one rated above plus SF if
>illuminated by the star. If more than one star is illuminating, add the highest
>SF (remember these are logarithms, adds are really multiplies).
>The scout if in earthorbit and not in planetary shadow will have a reflective
>PEMS sig of -4 +6 = +2.
>
>Scanpoints has to be at least 45 degrees from the suns direction if small and
>at least 90 degrees if normal to not be affected by sunfactor. Those closer
>than these angles subtract the sunfactor from scanfactor if the scanning ship
>isn't in planetary shadow. Note that NEUT sensors are never in planetary
>shadow, those solar neutrinos will pass through planets like nothing. Note also
>that MASS sensors never need to worry about the solar direction but neither can
>they scan through planets like the NEUT ones.
>
>Example: The aforementioned scout chooses a square 17 squares away in
>coordinates x-18 y-45. He uses a normal scan and his PEMS has a factor of 0.
>He rolls a sucess at the sensor task. His factor is:
>0(original) -2(range) +0(success) = -2
>The radius is 16 (17-1)
>He tells the other player "OK I put a PEMS scan at 18 45, factor -2 radius 16
>If the opponent has anything within 16 squares from 18,45 and they have any
>PEMS sig of +2 or higher he has to respond.
>
>Detection
>=========
>Sum the scan factor with your sig and if 0 or higher consult the chart below.
>You must tell the player all sigs that are 0 or better.
>
>Scanfactor + Sig:
>0-1: Indicated;  tell location but not vector, tell highest sig for that sensor
>but not targettype.
>2-3: Detected;  tell location and vector, tell highest sig for that sensor but
>not targettype.
>4+: Locked;  tell location and vector, tell all indicated+ sigs for that sensor
>and targettype.It will remain locked until no sensor from this ship has it
>Indicated or better for a round.
>
>Combat
>======
>a: Beam weapons attack and implement damage.
>b: Surviving missiles hit and implement damage.
>Within each subphase first fire is determined by a shiptactics task roll and
>damage effects are inflicted before the next ship may fire.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1195
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest      Tuesday, April 15 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1196



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Brilliant Idea From Nick Munn
Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing
Re: Norris' sexual orientation
Re: Imperial Yacht
Re: Conservation (was Re: IR masking)
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Re: Computer Tech
Re: WIZARDS OF THE COAST TO ACQUIRE TSR INC.
Re: Droyne/Chirpers for TNE
Re: Is there a Mathematician in the House?
Re: What is Science? (was Re: Realism vs. Play Value)
Re: What is Science? (was Re: Realism vs. Play Value)
Re: Low Tech Space Fighters
A purchaser's plea!
Re: Crimson Class Patrol Cruiser
Re: History of the Geonee, Part 5
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications) 
Re: H2 Storage
Re: Life is Hard in Traveller

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 01:19:18 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Brilliant Idea From Nick Munn

> Why make it so complicated?


What's so complicated?  

When a character goes up due to experience, his experience score is 
raised one point (which raises his target number one point).

After he gets three such raises, his skill level is increased by one.

That's it.

It seems much more simple than what you are proposing.

Am I missing something?

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 00:39:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing

> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 97 22:34:34 -0500
> From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
> 
> > > BTW, how'd you like my ad libs? ;->
> 
> > Wonderful.  I'd love to play in one of your games some time. :)
> 
> How do you feel about "Ether Propellers?"  I'm just going to *have* do that
> one of these days!  

I have always *dreamed* of playing in a Space:1899 game!  The whole idea
is just too lovely.  I think my favorite small detail of such a world is
the heliograph station on Phobos, for relaying messages between the
Martian surface and Earth. :)

But even absent the full, gloriously absurd Space:1899 background, ether
propellers in and of themselves are a beautiful idea.  Powered by refined
phlogiston, perhaps...?

> Actually, I'm thinking about a PBEM this summer, I'll put you on the list
> of people that are interested if you want.  

Please do!  I've been moaning and wailing about being just too busy to
jump into Mark Clark's "Beltwatch" game...this'll give me something to
look forward to instead for the summer, when I should be at least a little
bit less overwhelmed [Craig pauses to knock wood].

> I won't be using Thruster plates or much of the 'canon' background. I'm
> leaning toward STL stutterwarp, AG/CG with very low thrust beyond low
> orbit, FTL jump drive, and a couple of alternate energy technologies.  The
> game will take place during *a* long (much longer) night, and center around
> a exploratory merchant crew working on the Quental Main.  Something of a
> swashbuckler.

Sound great!  I know this is off-topic for the TML, but one of my favorite
pieces of color from 2300 AD is (and I don't recall if this was ever
officially pointed out) the visual effect of a ship pulling alongside you
using stutterwarp at >c.  Suddenly, out of nowhere, the ship is just
*there*...then, very rapidly, a flickering series of images of the ship
recedes along the line of travel the ship just traversed, vanishing
quickly into the distance.  Something gloriously surreal about that.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 11:53:23 -0800
From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
Subject: Re: Norris' sexual orientation

> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 20:01:09 +0100
> From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
> Subject: Re: Norris' sexual orientation
> 
> >When did we establish that Norris was gay?
> >
> >- --Glenn
> 
> It's a TNE thing ;)
> 
> - --------------- Dom Mooney (dom@cybergoths.u-net.com)---------------

Norris's orientation was first hinted at in DGP's The MegaTraveller
Journal#1 (1991) in an article called Norris Interview, set in the year
1120, (pg 42-5) which was written by Rob Caswell & _Mark_Miller_ One of
the questions is:

Mark Shiguulli (the interviewer): Getting back to the successor question
for a second, is there any specific reason you've remained unmarried
(Norris is 57 at the time) ?

Archduke Norris Aledon: Not aside from the obvious ones. I've never met
anyone who I felt strongly enough towards to make that kind of
commitment and I've never had the time to step up the search. (Norris
grins) I had Seldrian (Norris's female clone & sole heir) because it
became apparent that such an action was my duty.

Norris answer when asked if there is any reason he has never married is
"Not aside from the obvious ones. I've never met anyone (notice he does
not say any _woman_ ) who I felt strongly enough towards..."  Being gay
is one of the obvious reasons not to get married (at least to a member
of the opposite sex).  This question and it's answer did not sound very
different from the answers closeted gay movie stars give.

Norris's orientation was fairly firmly established in TNE's Regency
Sourcebook where it says "Norris never really recovered from the death
of his trusted advisor Branj Dilgaadin in 1146, and it os believed that
the long and close psionic relationship he had with his seneschal made
it that much more difficult for him to form relationships later in life,
most of all with marriageable women." Norris wrote a poetic ode to Branj
which he read at Branj's funeral

	"I never ruled alone through all the trials that we fought,
For you were there beside me, you knew my every thought. 
Amid challenges and crises more than one man could withstand,
You were my second body; my unseen mind and hand.
But now your place lies empty, both without me and within,
And to rule alone is something I don't know how to begin.
I would find a queen, who like you, shares my purpose and my thought,
But how can I know another, when I know that she could not ?

This ode is a pretty clear indication of Norris's love for Dilgaadin.

A life long bachelor with no close relationships with women who rejects
them because they could not be a close as he was with another man.  I
don't see any doubt that Norris is gay.

Since Norris's heir and clone, Seldrian, shares his genes & most current
genetic evidence suggests (although does not prove) that homosexuality
is primarily genetic we can probably assume that she was also gay.  This
might be part of the reason why her marriage to Avery Alledon (Emporer
Strephons son) failed and their only child was conceived in vitro,
although the facts that Avery was 20 years younger and that the marriage
was a political one are other factors.

Arrival Vengence suggests, in the chapter on Strephon, that the Emporer
Strephon knew of Norris's homosexuality.  Certain of his comments to the
players about Norris need for a heir and how his clone was a good
solution to the problem suggest he knew the traditional method was out
for Norris.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 00:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Imperial Yacht

  I should point out that the stuff I included about regular crew members
serving as waiters and such at state functions is straight from the
documentary on the Britannia.  They showed one fellow, assigned to the
ship for only six weeks, who was a medical tech but was all dressed up and
tasked to serve wine to the guests at dinner.  According to the program,
it works, because since there are so many of the crew working at serving
the dinner, each has only a simple job (at least the ones who are normally
crew), and since a trained steward is always nearby, there are no
problems.  

  Note also that most of those who serve as crew are there for a
long time - the Britannia does not rotate crewmembers to the fleet like
normal ships.  Most folks stay with the ship for a large chunk of their
careers, they come as experienced seamen already, and they are selected as
an elite group.  According to the program, it was not uncommon for
crewmembers to have 10, 15, or even 20 years service aboard the Britannia.

  Where did Cleon I get folks like that?  From his own personal yacht, of
course.  He also has the pick of crewmembers from the entire inperial
navy.  I'd be pretty confident his crew (all pretty smart cookies, I'll
bet) can handle the job.

______________________________
Dr. Mark Clark
Oregon Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 10:13:53 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Conservation (was Re: IR masking)

>Nice try, but no cigar. If it *was* "pushing" on the star, then the
>enery required to increase your velocity would increase as your
>velocity increased. That is, if it took X to get to 1 km/s, it'd take
>*4X* to get to 2 km/s, and 9X to get to 3 km/s.
>
>That's a *massively* losing proposition.

Well, at least it takes care of those 0.1c rocks and keeps the playing
pieces on the mapboard (I'm not shure wether I am joking or not yet).


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 10:16:35 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

>My only question is whether there is a similarly nifty way to do visual
>output? Audio output can be handled through a medium-sized earring with a
>bone conduction speaker (on the back of the earring where it touches the
>head. But I can see any) way to do visual output w/o screens or
>holofields.

Gibson uses something called virtual light which according to his book
notes is an actual research system. Some gizmo stimulate the optic nerve
directly bypassing the retina and this is done "wireless". I have no idea
about usability, resolution etc but that's what you get for 0.02 Cr


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 10:40:36 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Computer Tech

>Some tactical feedback would simply imitate whether an object was rough
>or smooth, perhaps using some sort of focused magnetic field. This same
>magnetic field could give the feel of resistance to simulate button
>pushing. How this would translate to a tactical readout could be limited
>only by imagination.

How do you feel a "focussed magnetic field"? By inpmanting ferrous sand in
your fingertips or what. How do you focus a magnetic field over large
distances (1 meter or so)?


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 10:44:32 MET
From: "Volker A. Greimann" <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
Subject: Re: WIZARDS OF THE COAST TO ACQUIRE TSR INC.

I read about it. It's a joke, isn't it? 
David beating Goliath! What has the world come to? Ad Astra,

V.A.G.       
- ------  Volker A. Greimann, also known as: Grei5001@uni-trier.de  ----
- -- Am Weidengraben 86,C6 - 54296 Trier - Germany - T+F: +49651148846 -
- --- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/4061 ---
- ---- Student of Law, Gamer, Illuminatus Primus, Slayer of Windows95 --
- -----  "Don't hold me up: I am just barely ahead of insanity!!!" -----

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 11:47:26 +0200
From: Carlos Alos-Ferrer <alos@merlin.fae.ua.es>
Subject: Re: Droyne/Chirpers for TNE

>From: fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin W. Cain)

>	I was bored this weekend, so I wrote a draft paper consolidating my >notes
on Droyne and Chirper characters in TNE converting 
>_Alien_Module__5:_Droyne_ [AM5:Dr] to be compatible
>with TNE).  I'd appreciate some feedback.

	I hope you'll be also bored next weekend and you make a write-up on
Chirpers and Droyne for T4 <g>.

>Background Skills:
>	A Chirper character can have whatever four appropriate Background >skills
the player wants, subject, as usual, to GM approval.

	Hummm... too general. They cannot have advanced technical skills, that's
for sure, so something more specific would be appropriate. Some sort of
table the player could roll on, or choose from. Animal Handling should have
a high probability on such a table.

>Career Generation and Resolution:
>Chirper
>Skills: Acrobat, Animal Handling, Charm, Explore, Interaction.

	I do not recall if it exists in TNE, but the MT skill Survival could fit here.

>New Skills:

>Flying (CON) -- Acrobat, Personal Transport: This skill lets the Droyne or
>Chirper make use of mechanical wings.  This skill is from AM5:Dr.

	On dense atmospheres, maybe some Droyne could fly with their own wings? Or,
at least, glide? I suggest the skill "Gliding" for Chirpers/Droyne with
Dense Atm Homeworlds.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Alos-Ferrer                          E-mail: Alos@merlin.fae.ua.es
Dpt. Fundamentos del Analisis Economico     Phn: (34) 6 5903400, Ext. 3226
Universidad de Alicante                     Fax: (34) 6 5903685
03071-Alicante (Spain)                      "Thursuth gha kvaekh?"
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 11:44:14 +0200
From: Carlos Alos-Ferrer <alos@merlin.fae.ua.es>
Subject: Re: Is there a Mathematician in the House?

>From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>

>I'm having trouble with a probability problem, and I wanted to see if
>anybody on the list can help me.
>What I need to know:
>What is the probability that 3 sixes will pop up when you throw 4D?
>How about for 5D?
>For 6D?
>And for 7D?

No, I am not going to answer
No, I am not going to answer
No, I am not going to answer
No, I am not going to answer
...
Ahhhhhg... I cannot resist. I'm gonna answer.

Well, I am a mathematician, so,  taking into account that these calculations
are always very delicate, its almost sure (i.e., with probability one ;-) )
that I will make a mistake on the following, but one could systematically
proceed along the following lines (yeah, there are conditional probability
formulas, but they are too messy for a problem like this):

Possible outcomes when throwing 4D = 6**4 (six to the 4th)
Outcomes with exactly 4 sixes: 1
Outcomes with exactly 3 sixes = outcomes where one and only one die is not a
six = 4 x 5 (any of the 4 dice, any of the 5 numbers 1...5)
Total outcomes with 3 or 4 sixes when throwing 4D = S(4)=21
Prob(3 or more sixes on 4D) = 21/(6**4) = 0.016203703

Possible outcomes when throwing 5D= 6**5 (six to the 5th)
Outcomes with exactly 5 sixes: 1
Outcomes with exactly 4 sixes = outcomes where one and only one dice is not
a six = 5 x 5 =25 (5 possible samplings of the non-six die, 5 possible
values for it)
Outcomes with exactly 3 sixes = outcomes where two and only two dice are not
sixes = (5x4/2x1) x5x5 = 250 (5x4/2x1 (i.e. the combinatorial number 2 over
5) possible samplings of the two non-six dice, 5x5 possible values for them)
Prob (3 or more sixes on 5D)= Add this three figures and divide by 6**5 =
276 / (6**5) = 0.035493827 (aprox)

Possible outcomes when throwing 6D= 6**6 (six to the 6th)
Outcomes with exactly 6 sixes: 1
Outcomes with exactly 5 sixes = outcomes where one and only one dice is not
a six = 6 x 5 = 30 (6 possible samplings of the non-six die, 5 possible
values for it)
Outcomes with exactly 4 sixes = outcomes where two and only two dice are not
sixes = (6x5/2x1) x5x5 = 375 (6x5/2x1 (i.e. the combinatorial number 2 over
6) possible samplings of the two non-six dice, 5x5 possible values for them)
Outcomes with exactly 3 sixes = ... = (6x5x4/3x2x1) x 5x5x5 = 20 x 125 = 2500
(6x5x4/3x2x1 possible samplings of 3 dice, 5x5x5 possible values for them)
Prob (3 or more sixes on 6D)= 2906/ (6**6) = 0.062285665 (aprox)

Possible outcomes when throwing 7D= 6*7 (six to the seventh)
Outcomes with exactly 7 sixes: 1
Outcomes with exactly 6 sixes = outcomes with one and only one non-six = 7x5
= 35
Outcomes with exactly 5 sixes= ... = (7x6/2x1) x 5x5 = 21x25 = 525
Outcomes with exactly 4 sixes= ... = (7x6x5/3x2x1) x 5x5x5 = 35 x 125 = 4375
Outcomes with exactly 3 sixes= ... = (7x6x5x4/4x3x2x1)  x 5x5x5x5 = 35 x 625
= 21875
Prob (3 or more sixes on 7D)= 26811 / (6**7) = 0.095775462 (aprox)

Summary: rounding in the fourth digit,

Number of dice		Prob(3 or more sixes)	Prob in %
=========================================================
4			0.0162			1.62 %
5			0.0355			3.55 %
6			0.0623			6.23 %
7			0.0958			9.48 %
=========================================================

	Unfortunately, these do not coincide with the figures that Kenneth posted
the other day. They are pretty close to those of Nick Munn, except the last,
which differs in the third digit. Tell me if I am wrong. If the figures are
right, next time I teach a Prob course, I'll put this in the examination <g>.

	By the way, I have always been under the impression that the percentage of
SF-roleplayers among mathematicians is higher than in the population. So,
how many mathematicians are around here? Email me privately, I will count
ourselves... ;-)
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Alos-Ferrer                          E-mail: Alos@merlin.fae.ua.es
Dpt. Fundamentos del Analisis Economico     Phn: (34) 6 5903400, Ext. 3226
Universidad de Alicante                     Fax: (34) 6 5903685
03071-Alicante (Spain)                      "Thursuth gha kvaekh?"
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 11:04:18 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: What is Science? (was Re: Realism vs. Play Value)

>How was Aristotle, "not a scientists" for all intents and purposes?
>Because the definition didnt exist then?  I disagree whole heartedly.
>Aristotelian science was around for almost 2500 years until the time of
>galileo and his contemporaries and academic descendents.
>
>He followed the Empirical method, so his a scientist.

He's not a scientis as he did not follow the empirical method. His
assertion that men have more teeth than females for instance would easily
be falsified by exoperiments. Actually he preferred doing "science" by
thought alone.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 11:01:40 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: What is Science? (was Re: Realism vs. Play Value)

>I agree with Leonard in that certain well established laws (The 3 Laws of
>Thermo spring to mind) which are known to be true in all known
>circumstances, should not be violated without a *lot* of thought to the
>consequences.

They seem to have problems when encountering really cool temps and/or
really few particles but as termodynamics is a classical system the latter
doesn't apply.
With the risk of being called a lot of nasty things again I'm wondering why
schools do not teach simple termodynamics? Newtons laws are taught in basic
school but few seem to know about termodynamics (even on this list).
I smell a conspiracy here=8A


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 01:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Low Tech Space Fighters

  The one thing to keep in mind with the Sanger, Dyna-Soar, and similar
atmospheric manuevering proposals from the 1960s and before is that they
relied on _manual_ piloting for re-entry.  Even with skilled pilots, this
is a dicey proposition (though perhaps not strictly impossible).  I talked
with the fellow who did a history of Dyna-Soar, who was an active-duty Air
Force flight officer at the time (his thesis was delayed by flying in the
Gulf War, one of the better reasons I've heard for turning in a paper
late).  I remeber him telling me that one of the most scary parts of
reading the program description was the part about how the pilots were
expected to land from orbit without onboard computers and were cut off
from ground guidance for a good portion of reentry due to the ionized gas
envelope surounding the ship due to the heat of reentry.  The learning
curve is pretty steep here - screw up the first time and you're toast.

______________________________
Dr. Mark Clark
Oregon Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 11:06:24 MET
From: "Volker A. Greimann" <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
Subject: A purchaser's plea!

- -> Yes, that's it, except that when First Survey is reprinted, it will be 
- -> hardbound with Milieu 0 (which will have the missing material that was 
- -> left out of the first printing - deckplans for the Scout Cruiser, and so 
- -> on), plus I'm told we (CORE) have permission to add a chapter on how to 
- -> interpret UWP's, as well as how to read the FS data (i.e., what does 
- -> "PBG" mean).  By interpret, I mean, "What is a planet with a small size, 
- -> standard, untainted atmosphere, and 20 billion people likely to be like," 
- -> "What does Gov type 8 with LL 0 mean"  and so on.  An aid to the 
- -> imagination, obviously mostly for beginners.
- -> 
Great! So now i completely feel like a beta-tester for Traveller!
IG seems to tell us: "Well the idea is that you buy the product, look 
for mistakes and then buy the corrected version!"
If i want a corrected version of FS i also have to buy M0 again??? 
Puh-Lease!
I would hope thar IG starts to adopt a SJG-like playtesting scheme, 
that includes sending pre-production data and texts out to a number 
of playtesters who can examine and critize the product BEFORE it is 
printed (I would volunteer ;-)!!! 
I would also be happy with a service that puts changes between 
versions and missing data on an Errata sheet (some sheet for FS) 
available to anyone for free! At this point, i don't own a T4 product 
that isn't going to be updated (TLWH, T4-Rules, M:0) and frankly, 
this starts pissing me off! Please make sure that errata and update 
sheets are made available free for buyers of faulty products, or 
downloadable on the web page! Pleeaaaasse (begging on my knees)! 
I find that IG's books are among the most expensive on the market and 
I don't want to have to buy all of them twice just because i want 
correct versions! We buyers deserve that!  













Ad Astra,

V.A.G.       
- ------  Volker A. Greimann, also known as: Grei5001@uni-trier.de  ----
- -- Am Weidengraben 86,C6 - 54296 Trier - Germany - T+F: +49651148846 -
- --- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/4061 ---
- ---- Student of Law, Gamer, Illuminatus Primus, Slayer of Windows95 --
- -----  "Don't hold me up: I am just barely ahead of insanity!!!" -----

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 02:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Crimson Class Patrol Cruiser

  Nice, well balanced design.  One question - where is the hull from?  As
I recall, the 600 ton hull from QSDS is unstreamlined, not airframe.

______________________________
Dr. Mark Clark
Oregon Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 12:21:13 +0200
From: Carlos Alos-Ferrer <alos@merlin.fae.ua.es>
Subject: Re: History of the Geonee, Part 5

>From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com>
>
>Excellent as usual, Carlos.  One question: have you detailed the minor-race
>inhabitants of Llyrn yet?  I've seen mention of them several times so far
>(including, IIRC, their renown among the Geonee as Marine troopers), but
>no specific description.  Are they in the "to-be-detailed-later" stack or
>are you just keeping secrets?  :-)

        He he he... I am detailing them at the moment, and I will post a
summary. In fact, I thought to wait a bit to post the History and present
them first, but, as you can see, this little detail has been an excellent
reading check... now I know some people is really reading the history in
detail <G>.
        Let me advance something about 'their renown among the Geonee as
Marine troopers". The Geonee are high-G adapted, so, when artificial gravity
goes off (something fairly frequent in space combat), they are not the most
dextrous fighters. But the Llyrnians come from a size-3 planet... 
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Alos-Ferrer                          E-mail: Alos@merlin.fae.ua.es
Dpt. Fundamentos del Analisis Economico     Phn: (34) 6 5903400, Ext. 3226
Universidad de Alicante                     Fax: (34) 6 5903685
03071-Alicante (Spain)                      "Thursuth gha kvaekh?"
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 02:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications) 

Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU> wrote:

>Try reading Samuel R. Delaney's "Nova" sometime, for a feeling of what a
>far future tech could be. We're NOT talking about no %$#@ 'ten years in
>the future cyberpunk', we're talking 3000+ years!

>In "Nova" there's one character that expresses disbelief that there's
>anyone who doesn't have neural jacks...much less an entire group (one of
>the characters is a Gypsy, a real live Romany from old Terra, and they
>don't get the jacks implanted. As a result they can't get work, and are
>persecuted fairly badly)

>There's also a short discussion about how the invention of the neural
>jacks vastly changed the concept of 'work' for most people.

Yes, but I see neural jacks (as well as most other typical cybertech) as
overly obvious and flashy solutions to problems.  If you can make an
interface headband which works almost as well and it doesn't require the
user to have brain surgery (even safe, easy, brain surgery) it will be a
vastly more popular option.  Cyberpunk looks clunky, after thousands of
years of use tech isn't going to look clunky, it will be easy to use,
conveniently sized, and highly ergonomic. 

>The problems I'm having with all this "future technology" is that somehow
>EVERYTHING gets turned into a stagnant Vilani state for the next couple of
>thousand years, that somehow the pace of technological change slows to a
>crawl...why is everyone assuming that year Zero looks like 2010 with
>JumpDrives? or worse, 1997 with jumpdrives, fusion and antigravity (flying
>frogs excepted)?

Very much agreed!  Except for some of the Digest Group material Traveller
has always seemed like 2010 with jump drive, fusion, and CG.  I would like
to see a game set thousands of years in the future be a bit more daring. 
One of my biggest disappointments was when 2300 came out and I saw that
the world of 2300 was actually in advance of the 3rd Imperium in many
ways. 

Other Comments?


- -John Snead jsnead@netcom.com

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 11:43:54 +0200
From: Per Bernhardsson <bard@ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: H2 Storage

Eric Holmes wrote:
> 
> Hey guys!
> 
> Have we just witnessed a real live TL advancement?
> 
> Seems the need for such _large_ L-Hyd fuel tanks
> went out the window!!!!!

Not entirely, there is on thing that I wanted to ignore, but for the
sake of game balance I can't the procedure to load fuel takes a long
time. Currently a to fill a 35 l tank takes several hours, OK, so that
might become more efficient later on, but it would still require a much
longer time to do than normal. Gasgiant refueling would also be more or
less ruled out since the standard way of doing it requires that you have
the fuel stored in the ship, that would be impossible with this system
since it takes so long to store. Even though the problem with unrefined
fuel would be less due to the fact that H2 molecules is just about the
only thing that fits in that small space. During fueling the tank must
be under 12 MPa pressure and afterwards the pressure must be held at 4
MPa to keep the H2 from leaking out.

Hmm, now I think I've sqeezed all the info I can out of that article.

> Time to change QSDS/SSDS.

Append some stuff perhaps. I've got some ideas for that.

Fuel pressurizer

As fuel purification plant only double size, but you must have a
constant supply of gas (which means that if doing GG refueling you have
to stay down there until finished) and it's also more expensive,
something like 4 times since it would have incorporate some nanotech too
to rejuvinate (since the problem with deteoriating fibers hasn't been
completely solved) the nanofibers all the time.

The fueltanks would become smaller ofcourse but how much? Could someone
perhaps give us a calculation.

One of the problems with this type of fueltank is that you can't use
unrefined fuel, since you don't have a fueltank that can contain
anything other than pure H2. This would require a ship to either have a
fuel pressurizer or skip all those ports without capacity for refined
fuel.

Just an idea...

 / Per

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 13:03:53 +0200
From: Carlos Alos-Ferrer <alos@merlin.fae.ua.es>
Subject: Re: Life is Hard in Traveller

>From: Pablo Jaime Conill Querol <pconque@delta.cti.unav.es>

>         About the task system i do not undestand why to change the MT task
>system. Is is really good (i think), it works. Then, why we have to change
>it?. I am going to use it (except some one proposses a better task system).
>        Any comments?

        I feel exactly the same. The only problem is that the task system is
an integral part of MT. If you use that task system, then you have to use
the MT combat system (which, as we both know well, is quick & dirty enough
for us <g>), and that means, for instance, that Emperor's Arsenal is almost
useless.
        The same can be said about Character Generation. It seems that T4
characters end with significatively more skills than MT characters, so,
using the MT task system, they will be making Formidable tasks on a routine
basis, which is not good. Yeah, you can use MT character generation, which
has the advantage that then you have a nice amount of extra careers (18 in
the basic book plus all the other careers that time has added to everybody's
house rules).
        You see what happens. You are stuck with MT, and no more MT
supplements are going to be released...

        Personally, I agree with you. The MT task system was good enough,
and there was no need for a change. But I would like to be able to use and
understand all the T4 material with the minimum effort on my side (I prefer
to keep my spare time for developing background, not rules).

        This list has seen Marc's efforts for presenting a new system, and
Kenneth's counter-attack. I agree that maybe KBv2.0 is a good system, but,
for some non-rational reason, It's not really appealing for me. I want Skill
level to be the relevant number, not Experience=3xSkill level. But, still, I
do not want to add Skill+Attribute as in the T4 system, that puts too much
weight on attributes. The MT task system solved it fairly well. In fact,
maybe we could just come up with some minor modification of the MT system to
use with T4 characters... Adding 2 to the difficulty levels, or something
like that. The bad thing of having an official system and a popular
unofficial one is that then, the rules are unclear. I always restrained
myself from toying with the task system, but now, it seems that one would
not loose much by using a homebred system specifically tailored to suit own
(and only own) tastes. And, over tastes, there is no discussion. 

>        By the other way you people have been discussing about reality &
>play value for a long time, and i dont understand were the problem is. There
>is what i think:

        I haven't entered this debate because, basically, Joseph "Chepe"
Lockett has already said all that I could have said.

>        1) We are playing a Sci-Fi RPG. It means a future (does not matter
>if it is Space Opera or Hard fiction) that needs a internal coherence (i do
>not know if i wrote the right word). If what happens in your own Traveller
>universe is coherent with itself (and whith the rules, cause if you are not
>coherent whit the rules you use there is a problem) there is not any problem.

        Internal coherence is not all. Star Wars is Internally coherent
(IMHO), but it's still Fantasy, not Sci-Fi. Sci-Fi should try to be at least
partially coherent with physics. Up to which point? The answer is clear for
me... up to the point where the Ref & the players don't know any better. In
my universe, nobody is going to travel BACK in time, and nobody is going to
beat light speed... without a lot of babblership about "jumpspace" and the
like. But I am not going to take and Advanced Chemistry Class to make sure
the mining comnplex I am designing mines the right ores...

>        2) We are playing a Sci-Fi RPG. It means there is Science (maybe it
>is not discovered, but it need to be coherent with itself) and Ficcion
(Snip) > The Science and the Ficcion are mixed one
>with each other, and the two are mixed with the plot, providing hapyness in
>a Coherent world.

        I agree. After all, there is only one RULE (with capital letters) in
RPG: It has to be fun. Precisely because I do not have any fun with
unexplained magics, I prefer SF-RPG. Precisely because I do not have any fun
with sublight travel, I accept Jumpspace.
        The main advantage of relying on real science for the basics of the
game universe is that the real universe is coherent (I hope!), so some of
the coherence will carry to your game automatically. We don't need enormous
efforts to be "realistic". Just think twice before putting a new tech gadget
in your game, and make sure it could be possible and it does not alter the
equilibrium of your universe significatively.

        But the realism/non-realism debate could go on to other fields. Most
of the time, I use rules of thumb to determine if something is being
realistic or not. For example... when is Combat realistic? Well, If a group
of 5 PCs defeat an equally armed, equally capable group of 5 NPCs, all NPCs
die, and no PC dies, then the combat HAS BEEN unrealistic. I expect at least
a couple of the PCs to die. Next time, they will seek some advantage before
entering combat.
        (At least one TMLer knows perfectly well what I am talking about
here ;-) )
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Alos-Ferrer                          E-mail: Alos@merlin.fae.ua.es
Dpt. Fundamentos del Analisis Economico     Phn: (34) 6 5903400, Ext. 3226
Universidad de Alicante                     Fax: (34) 6 5903685
03071-Alicante (Spain)                      "Thursuth gha kvaekh?"
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1196
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest      Tuesday, April 15 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1197



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Norris' sexual orientation
Re: Norris' sexual orientation
Re: Imperial Yacht
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Re: Brilliant Idea From Nick Munn
Re: 2D starmaps
Re: H2 Storage
Re: Life is Hard in Traveller
Future sight (was Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications) )
Re: A purchaser's plea!
Re: Consequences of Jump Uncertainties
Re: IR Missiles
Re: Heat sinks
Re: Fighters BB Killing Weapons
Re: IR Masking
Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing
Re: Missiles+Fighters
Re: Missiles+Fighters
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Re: Neutrinos
Re: Search and Rescue Boat

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 06:51:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Re: Norris' sexual orientation

In a message dated 97-04-15 03:22:12 EDT, Eris writes:

>Besides, Norris is *really* a TL18 robot put in place by the Templars, the
>Zhodine, or the Darrians. It's controller is obviously the senechal, and
>there's an obvious reason why it doesn't engage in sexual
>encounters...whoever built him forgot a little something. <g>
Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy, If you're going to try to slip a robot into a postion
like this, you should plan for every contingency. Sounds less like the
Templars and more like the Metrans from the '50s.
dsf

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 07:08:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Re: Norris' sexual orientation

"the obvious reasons" for Norris not being married are his duties to the
Imperium.
As for the poem for his advisor, Norris is a "Sensitive New Age Kinda Guy"
expressing grief for his best buddy.
dsf

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 07:10:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Re: Imperial Yacht

> Where did Cleon I get folks like that?  From his own personal yacht, of
>course.  He also has the pick of crewmembers from the entire inperial
>navy.  I'd be pretty confident his crew (all pretty smart cookies, I'll
>bet) can handle the job.
>
But do they know where to place the Sour Cream Straw in a place setting?
dsf

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 13:19:16 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

>Wearing your technology is the way to go.  All this will be donned with no
>more
>thought than the average person straps on a wristwatch, and will be as easy to
>handle.

Well, look at how much "easier" modern watches are to set than older ones
and in 3000 years it will probably take an AI computer several years to do
it. User interfaces don't always improve by TL ;)


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 13:17:03 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Brilliant Idea From Nick Munn

>What's so complicated?
>
>When a character goes up due to experience, his experience score is
>raised one point (which raises his target number one point).
>
>After he gets three such raises, his skill level is increased by one.
>
>That's it.
>
>It seems much more simple than what you are proposing.
>
>Am I missing something?
>
>Kenneth.

 As I don't plan on using the tasksystem (though good compared to T4 it
is!) maybe I shouldn't meddle but why keep skill levels at all when
attribute + xps is your target number? Because the char gen system has
skills? Then convert each skill to 3 xps and be done with it.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 13:26:15 +0200
From: Per Bernhardsson <bard@ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: 2D starmaps

David J. Golden wrote:
> 
>         Another question is how you get a one-to-one mapping from 3D to 2D (i.e.
> each point in realspace corresponds to exactly one point in jumpspace, and
> vice-versa).

Since both 2D and 3D space are infinite that shouldn't bee too much of a
problem. The only problem is thinking in infinities instead of finite
numbers.

 / Per

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 13:31:22 +0200
From: Per Bernhardsson <bard@ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: H2 Storage

David J. Golden wrote:
>         One good reason for storing straight LH instead of embedding it in
> fiber-tanks or straight water: MASS! 1 metric ton of LH may take up more
> volume than 1 metric ton of H in H20 form, but it masses less--since the
> mass ratio of hydrogen to oxygen in water is 1:8, to get 1t of LH you have
> to carry NINE tons of water. There's a significant difference. Sure, my
> fighter may need 14 cubic meters to store 1 ton of hydrogen, but I can do
> that with a lot less MASS (even counting the tank dry mass) than your
> fighter can with its 1 cubic meter of water. And since acceleration REALLY
> depends on mass, not volume, I'm better off.

Ok, I was wrong there was one more thing I could squeeze out of that
article... :) anyways there's an example in there about a 35 l tank
(they think more about fuel for cars than for starships) it could
contain around 60 kg of H2 with a total tank weight of around 100 kg.
Sure it would weigh a lot more, but that can be offset with more
engines, which can fill up some of the released mass. It's all a
question of economy, the old ways are MUCH cheaper therefore they will
remain since most people won't have the money for the new stuff.

 / Per

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 13:30:59 +0200
From: Nicolas LEJEUNE <nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr>
Subject: Re: Life is Hard in Traveller

Carlos Alos-Ferrer  wrote:

>        Internal coherence is not all. Star Wars is Internally coherent
>(IMHO), but it's still Fantasy, not Sci-Fi. Sci-Fi should try to be at least
>partially coherent with physics. Up to which point?

I disagree : Star Wars is Sci-Fi and what _you_ call Sci-Fi is Hard Science


>        I agree. After all, there is only one RULE (with capital letters) in
>RPG: It has to be fun. Precisely because I do not have any fun with
>unexplained magics, I prefer SF-RPG. Precisely because I do not have any fun
>with sublight travel, I accept Jumpspace.

That's my point of view. Another way to say the same thing is that there is
only one RULE : THERE IS NO RULE!


>        The main advantage of relying on real science for the basics of the
>game universe is that the real universe is coherent (I hope!), so some of
>the coherence will carry to your game automatically. We don't need enormous
>efforts to be "realistic". Just think twice before putting a new tech gadget
>in your game, and make sure it could be possible and it does not alter the
>equilibrium of your universe significatively.
>
>        But the realism/non-realism debate could go on to other fields. Most
>of the time, I use rules of thumb to determine if something is being
>realistic or not. For example... when is Combat realistic? Well, If a group
>of 5 PCs defeat an equally armed, equally capable group of 5 NPCs, all NPCs
>die, and no PC dies, then the combat HAS BEEN unrealistic. I expect at least
>a couple of the PCs to die. Next time, they will seek some advantage before
>entering combat.

Agreed, this is the easiest and most effective way to build a realistic system.
- -----------
Nicolas LEJEUNE
   Engineer, Paris, France
   Traveller (TNE), and WhiteWolf RPG
   Mailto:nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 13:39:21 +0200
From: Nicolas LEJEUNE <nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr>
Subject: Future sight (was Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications) )

John Snead wrote:
>Bruce Johnson  wrote:
>>The problems I'm having with all this "future technology" is that somehow
>>EVERYTHING gets turned into a stagnant Vilani state for the next couple of
>>thousand years, that somehow the pace of technological change slows to a
>>crawl...why is everyone assuming that year Zero looks like 2010 with
>>JumpDrives? or worse, 1997 with jumpdrives, fusion and antigravity (flying
>>frogs excepted)?

>Very much agreed!  Except for some of the Digest Group material Traveller
>has always seemed like 2010 with jump drive, fusion, and CG.  I would like
>to see a game set thousands of years in the future be a bit more daring. 
>One of my biggest disappointments was when 2300 came out and I saw that
>the world of 2300 was actually in advance of the 3rd Imperium in many
>ways. 
>
>Other Comments?

Yes : Do we have other choice?

There is a limit to what we can imagine. I've understood that point when I
recently read a H.Reeves book. He stated that actual science knowledge
(very high density, time-space distortion, particles, anti-matter,
emptyness of matter, black holes ...) is very hard to explain to mundane
people.

Mundane people is definied by a low knoweldge in one theory. So when a
specialist in this domain explain to the mundane guy, he cannot refer to
formulas. He has to image the thoery. (BTW images have their own
limitation). Now to understand the effects, the mundaine people have to use
their imagination. This imagination is limited to what you can see. This
limitation can only be overcome by learning all the theory (the formulas)
from the begining. In this only case we can understand what we cannot
imagine. 

So :
Mundane : Can understand everything up to his imagination
Scientist : Can understand everything up to the actual theory

Imagine the difficulty to create a RPG in a 5 dimensions environement. It
couldn't be usable because players couldn't realise the situation
(imagination limitation). Or you would have to build precise laws of
physics which apply to this 5 dimension world (theory limitation). 

Let's come back to our RPG game :
The theory approch is limited to 1997's state. So the scientist future
sight extrapolates all the actual materials (theory and equipement).
The imagination approach is limited to historical/cultural knowledge
(including mythology and magic...). So mundane future sight uses his own
cultural information as a start. But it will ever look like something we know.



My opinion is that we CANNOT imagine what will be in 3500 year from now.
But we have to define something for our RPG. We are all doing that and
that's why Bruce Johnson says :
>The problems I'm having with all this "future technology" is that somehow
>EVERYTHING gets turned into a stagnant Vilani state for the next couple of
>thousand years

But Bruce, can you build a 5700's RPG with the 1900-1997 technological
evolution rate? As it's impossible, all we'll imagine would ever be
stagnant...

Do Aristote ever imagine that 1cm3 of matter could weight 500 000 000T? Do
he ever imagine that billions of people would communicate via computer
networks? Do he ever imagine that people would travel by train or plane? Do
he ever imagine that someone would land on moon?
Yeh, the 2000's RPG created by Aristote would have had a very stagnant
technological evolution too!

Other opinions?

- -----------
Nicolas LEJEUNE
   Engineer, Paris, France
   Traveller (TNE), and WhiteWolf RPG
   Mailto:nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 07:19:52 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: A purchaser's plea!

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Volker A. Greimann wrote:

> I would hope thar IG starts to adopt a SJG-like playtesting scheme, 
> that includes sending pre-production data and texts out to a number 
> of playtesters who can examine and critize the product BEFORE it is 
> printed (I would volunteer ;-)!!! 

We've been using playtesters since the changeover (remember, M0 and FS 
were made when the old management was in charge; they were just printed 
afteward).  Pocket Empires had seven or so playtesters.  Psionic 
Institutes has several playtesters (no, we don't need any more at this 
time[G]).  Greg Porter has always maintained good relations with the 
GDW-Beta folks, and runs a lot of stuff past them, too.


- -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: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 00:55:43 +1200
From: Rupert Boleyn <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Consequences of Jump Uncertainties

At 19:05 13/04/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>From: Marcus <uphhsmt@gemini.oscs.montana.edu>
>
>>        I've been thinking about the positional variation when doing a
jump.  It
>>lead me to believe that there should be a time uncertainty as well.  It
>
>>This implies a need for very
>>large ships carrying smaller attack craft through the jump. 
>
>This must be why battle riders were developed -- why haven't I thought of this 
>in the 18 or so years that I've been playing Traveller?  
>
>--Glenn
>
I've always taken it that a group of ships leaving from the same point (say
within 0.1 LS) at the same time, with identical vectors would have the same
Jump-space transit time, and would come out in pretty much the same
formation they went in. I also generally assume that when doing this the
ships all calculate the jump, and cross-check each other, thus giving a very
accurate jump.
R. Boleyn
 <gtrupert@iconz.co.nz>
TNE to the core

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 22:59:04 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: IR Missiles

In mail you write:

> Which brings me to my question: Could a TL 12 - 15 ship approach earth
> in todays environment without being detected?

Come in *slow*. That'll get you rejected as a glitch on just about
every sensor that's likely to detect you.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 21:10:04 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Heat sinks

In mail you write:

> Ah yes, but what if the only parallel universe(s) we can interact with have
> the same 3k background as ours, having been formed by the "big-bang" at the
> same time?

Then it's gonna take a *long* time to cool your ship to close enough 3K
to hide against the 3K background. Rate of heat flow goes down as the
temp diff goes down.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 23:09:42 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Fighters BB Killing Weapons

In mail you write:

>>We are producing and *storing* multiple *thousands* of anti-protons
>>currently. And plans are underway for building dedicated antimatter
>>production facilities. Sure, it's hideously expensive, But it is the
>>single *best* power storage medium known. The military is *very*
>>interested. 
>>
>>For example, if we come up with good enough storage designs, that 1000
>>g missile can be built using an antimatter rocket engine. And it'll be
>>*nasty*. 
>
> Maybe so, but God help the poor sods in an A-M equipped ship when the power
> goes down...

Not really. That's what *batteries* are for. And most designs are such
that they won't "leak" in freefall anyway.

Now if you get an interior hit in the antimatter storage, *that's* a
problem. 
- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 20:58:27 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: IR Masking

In mail you write:

>   I've noticed that the arguements about ship detecting center on how
> objects in space are going to be at about 300K.  Struck me that that is a
> steady-state proposition - while an object will eventually reach that
> state, if it is hotter or cooler it will take some time to reach
> equilibrium temperature.

Well, *ships* are going to be at that equilibrium, as that is *room
temperature* (21 C + 273 = 294, close enough for governmwent work)

>   Hence, the "Popsicle" series of stealthy missiles from Generica
> Industries.  You just keep them in the freezer until use, and then send
> them on their way at a nice temp that matches the background temp of the
> universe.  Just the chance to say "Time for a party - get another six-pack
> out of the fridge!" in character would be worth it.

Hmmm. It depends a lot on how much waste heat the missile generates.
Strangely, liquid fuel rockets will do best at this, as all the heat
production goes into the exhaust. Of course that exhaust "backlights"
your nice cold missile. Pity.

My old idea for firing kinetic kill missiles assumed that they were
refrigerated to reduce signature. It also assumed that they were highly
polished cones so that active search beams would reflect off at an
angle, not towards the sender. 

Add an engine on the back with sensors that peek around the edge every
so often, and it might actually managed to intercept a target.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 20:39:57 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Realism and "Literary" SF role-playing

In mail you write:

>>First off, I object to the assertion that players who find and exploit
>>unintended consequences of new tech/physics are "intentionally breaking
>>the game," or that this behavior is confined to rules-lawyering munchkins.
>
> [snip of very good example of "ruining" a game]
>
> I agree with you that this is a wonderful act of creativity on the part of 
> the
> player, and should be rewarded. But all the examples/complaints up to this
> have been of the "Well, if we allow that my players will use it to create 
> perpetual motion machines/super weapons/fighters that can beat capital
> ships" <g> and I call that munchkineering IMHO.

Consider those same players and that same "stealth unit". They need
more power. And it occurs to them that the stealth unit can cool the
hull to 3K, while beaming all the waste heat away at a few thousand K.
The temp difference can be used to create a simple heat engine that
puts out *astonishing* amounts of power. Oops, there's that damn
perpetual motion machine.

Or someone realizes that if he beefs it up enough, he can take all that
heat from the laser/particle beam/whatever that the enemy is hitting
him with, and fire it out thru this. Add a grav focuser from an old
laser battery, and he's now got an IR beam that'll fry the enemy, and
use their *own* power to do it!

And for that matter, thruster plate "world killers" are *still* possible.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 21:14:57 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Missiles+Fighters

In mail you write:

>>Me and Daniel had some ideas about large gravity wave detectors
>>for detecting incoming outgoing ships. Any ship coming in from
>>hyperspace or jumping would create a huge gravity wave
>>detectable in an entire solar system.
>
> This is a cool idea, but I don't understand why a jumping ship would make a
> "huge gravity wave". Does it get more massive or what?

Exactly. The spot where the ship emerges had a total of *zero* mass
until the ship emerged. Then it has a few hundred (or thousand) *tons*
of mass. This causes a gravity wave to radiate outward.

Using the standard "rubber sheet" analogy, the spot the ship is going
to emerge at has a very small slope due to the "nearby" star or planet.
When the ship emerges, you have "dropped" a weight on the sheet. The
resulting "dimple" in the sheet radiates outwards at lightspeed.

> Wouldn't this have unpleasant side effects on the crew and passengers?

No, because as far as *they* are concerned the *local* curature of
space hasn't changed significantly.

Gravity is the "slope" of the rubber sheet. Gravity *waves* are caused
by *moving* mass or changing it significantly. It's not gravity waves
holding you to the ground, it's gravity. We can't generate gravity
waves because we can't make enough mass change position fast enough. 

> Gravity wave detectors
> would probably be useful for detecting contra-grav or thruster plates, but
> I don't see why jump drive would have such an effect. Someone please
> enlighten me if I am wrong.

I trust you've been enlightened. If not, let me warm up my gigajoule
laser. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 21:52:07 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Missiles+Fighters

In mail you write:

> A ship entering or leaving jumpspace would change the gravity 'pattern' of
> the whole solar system. I suspect that the near instantaneous 'creation' of
> 1000+ tons of matter would be fairly easily detectable over almost any
> amount of background noise. Does anyone with a stronger grounding in physic
> wish to hazard an opinion? This could have substantial impact on warship
> design and tactics in my new campaign.

The wave will follow the inverse square law. So range matters. I don't
know what the *current* sensitivity of gravity wave detectors is. But a
quick way of evaluting signal strength is to figure out how much the
gravitational acceleration at the sensor *changes*. For a ship jumping
in or out, the formula is A=GM/R^2. A is the acceleration, M is the
mass of the ship, and R is the distance to the point it is
appearing/disappearing. 

A ship jumping will result in an acceleration *away* from the jump
point. A ship *arriving* will result in an acceleration *towards* the
jump point.

So you can't locate the jump point or determine the mass without at
least *two* sensors a fair distance apart. Each will report an
acceleration vector (strength and direction), and the point where the
vectors cross is where the ship entered or left. If the vectors point
*away* from the intersection, its a ship leaving. If they point towards
it, it's a ship arriving. If it's one of each, you are pairing the
wrong two vectors. :-)

So you'll get the same strength signal from a 100 ton scout at 150 km,
as from a 10,000 ton at 1500 km (100 times the mass at 10 times the
distance). 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 22:41:03 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

In mail you write:

> I don't think that anyone would take the position that democracy is
> the most efficient form of government, nor is it particularly
> natural.  Rather, it is fair and perceived as fair and therefore
> desireable by most people in the world who have some choice of what
> sort of government they have, as well as by a lot of people who don't
> have a choice.

Democracy is actually well known for being *unfair*. There is no reason
for the majority to be right. Nazi Germany passed that antiJewish
legislation while it was still a democracy. The majority *approvced* of
the laws.

> In fact, democracy, especially in the republican form established
> throughout Europe and the Americas, is intended to be somewhat
> inefficient, in order to provide enough due process that it will be
> perceived as fair and therefore legitimate.

The only saving grace of the republican form of government in the US,
is the somewhat unique idea of the Bill of Rights. That is, a document
that lists things that the government may *not* do, even if a majority
is in favor of them. Alas, the voting public doesn't understand that
this is a *safeguard*, and is getting increasingly upset when they vote
to take rights away from a minority and the vote gets thrown out on
constitutional grounds,

> Nazi Germany, by contrast, had a pretty efficient government -- really a 
> government/business alliance.  

But they did a lot of nasty things while still being a democracy! So
have other countries. And the famed democracy of the ancient Greeks was
primarily used to exile people that the rest of the citizens didn't
like. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 19:59:40 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Neutrinos

In mail you write:

>  
>>   I think the "shielding detectors" concept won't fly, simply
>> because the detectors don't interfere with the neutrinos.  That
>
> So you're going to have a non-interactive detector that gives you
> direction as well as energy for the neutrino?  I was under the
> impression that neutrino detectors were based on inverse beta decay,
> am I wrong here?

*Current* neutrino detectors are based on inverse beta decay. What
little the rules say about *their* neutrino detectors doesn't fit that
anyway.

> I was actually thinking more from a directional sense than
> absorbtion within the detector.  You could get a direction from
> something like a bubble chamber, but this implies an interaction,
> no?

Remember, you can get direction even with something as crude as a
geiger tube. You just have to have a couple layers of detectors so that
you can correlate the triggering.

So all you need is *something* that says "a neutrino just went through
me" and that doesn't have an excessive "reset" time.

>> said, however, you also will be swamped by stellar background
>> and unable to figure out someones location in anything like
>> reasonable parameters.  Also, the Book 8 sensor is an order
>> of magnitude or two too small for the best theoretical model
>> we can imagine.
>
> Background is indeed a problem---and I'd be interested in a decent
> reference for neutrino detectors (it's been a while since quantum
> :-)

Assuming some way of detecting many neutrinos instead of just a few,
the background won't be so bad. sure, you can "hide in the glare" from
a star, but only for people along a line running from the start to
you....

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 22:15:37 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Search and Rescue Boat

In mail you write:

> Inspired by the upcoming premier of "Beltwatch" and Mark Clark's rescue
> boat design, I'm please to present the Ce Acatl Corporation's "Quetzal"
> class Search & Rescue Boat:
>
> Ship/Class Name & Type: "Quetzal" class Rescue Boat             (QSDS 1.5)
>
> Tons:   200 Std (Needle S)      Volume:   2800 m3       Cost:   203.3 MCr
> Crew:   13                      Hi/Md P:  0             Low P:  0
> Cargo:  4.3 Std                 Controls: Fib           TL:     12

I thank both of the people who have responded with designs. But we are
looking for something considerably smaller and faster. Excerpt from a
message to the author of the other proposal:

- -------

My thought was that these would likely be converted fighters, so we can
probably just wait for the fighter contest to end and strip out the
weapons from a likely design.

But just off the top of my head, you'd want sonething that can boost a
9-g or better, with a crew of 1-2, and is capable of reaching *at
least* the 100 diameter limit under max boost (ie accelerate half way,
decelerate half way). Extra range is a bonus. 2 crew rather than 1 is a
bonus. Ability to use standard fighter launching and docking facilities
is a bonus. And it should have at least a couple of tones of cargo
space, 10 would be excellent.

Standard equipment load would be paramedic type supplies, oxygen,
water, rescue balls and emergency suits. And an "inflatable" shelter
for say 10-20 (ie a pressure tent they can stuff the casualties in if
the ship won't hold air). And gear for cutting into damaged ships (high
tech "jaws of life")

If there *isn't* such a shelter in CSC or some other book, there
*ought* to be.

They boost out at max g, then dock with the wreck, and start collecting
casualties and trying to stabilize them. They'd have a tight beam link
to the hospital back at the station, and be able to send medical data.
Meanwhile, the space ambulance you designed is on the way, as well as
salvage tugs and the local "space cops".

But the *primary* consideration is to be able to get the lifesaving
gear out there as fast as possible. After all, lives are at stake.
- ---------

Another excerpt:

- --------

Or even just a pilot/medic if you want an extra-elite group for
Beltwatch. Picture the idiot who tries picking a fight with someone who
spends much of his time either under hi-g during runs, or in simulators
at hi-g *practicing* for runs. :-)

- ---------

You *don't* pick fights with these guys or with crew for "over comp"
fighters. Not unless you *like* being beaten to a pulp...

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1197
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest      Tuesday, April 15 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1198



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: So what else is new and improved?
Re: What is Science? (was Re: Realism vs. Play Value)
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)
Re: What is Science? (was Re: Realism vs. Play Value)
[none]
Re: Computer Technology
Re: Imperial Yacht
Re: What is science?
Re: A purchaser's plea!
Re: Brilliant Idea From Nick Munn
Re: Is there a Mathematician in the House?
H2 Storage
Re: Is there a Mathematician in the House?
Re: Search and Rescue Boat
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)
Re: The low-tech 6th millenium
Re: Low Tech Space Fighters
re: Conservation (was Re: IR masking)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:14:40 +0100 (BST)
From: Eamon Patrick Watters <E.Watters@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: So what else is new and improved?

Joe Walsh sent:

> 
> Yes, that's it, except that when First Survey is reprinted, it will be 
> hardbound with Milieu 0 (which will have the missing material that was 
> left out of the first printing - deckplans for the Scout Cruiser, and so 
> on), plus I'm told we (CORE) have permission to add a chapter on how to 
> interpret UWP's, as well as how to read the FS data (i.e., what does 
> "PBG" mean).  By interpret, I mean, "What is a planet with a small size, 
> standard, untainted atmosphere, and 20 billion people likely to be like," 
> "What does Gov type 8 with LL 0 mean"  and so on.  An aid to the 
> imagination, obviously mostly for beginners.

I might even buy the Milieu 0/ FS amalgam IF it has the CORE Core 
subsector data. I more or less gave up om IG when I discovered that 
instead of the M0 book having the appropriate UWP's it had been decided 
that the FS crap would be inserted instead. That was the only fault with 
the M0 book - which was very good.

Eamon

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 07:23:02 -0700
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: What is Science? (was Re: Realism vs. Play Value)

At 04:57 PM 4/15/97 +1000, Solomani wrote:
>How was Aristotle, "not a scientists" for all intents and purposes?
>Because the definition didnt exist then?  I disagree whole heartedly.
>Aristotelian science was around for almost 2500 years until the time of
>galileo and his contemporaries and academic descendents.
>
>He followed the Empirical method, so his a scientist.

Aristotle followed the empirical method in some respects, but did not do so
in many others.  The Aristotlian model of thought has more philosophy in it
than observation, and virtually no concept of continued refining
observation, much less of falsification or prediction from observation.
Aristotle was a great thinker, but he was not a scientist in modern terms.
Pythagoras, Archimedes, or ... nuts, the fellow who figured the earth's
circumference from shadows in Egypt... might be, but not Aristotle.  


- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 07:22:58 -0700
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (communications)

At 12:03 AM 4/15/97 -0400, Bob Sanders wrote:
>ohn Snead jsnead@netcom.com  wrote:
>>>>
>My only question is whether there is a similarly nifty way to do visual
>output? Audio output can be handled through a medium-sized earring with
>a bone conduction speaker (on the back of the earring where it touches
>the head. But I can see any) way to do visual output w/o screens or
>holofields. 
><<<
>
>That is realitively simple. The military is working on a low powered
>laser that can direct a very low powered beam into the eye, to the nerve
>endings. Thus generating a much more realistic picture and much better
>quality. All you need is a pair of glasses, or something, to hold the
>emitter.
>
>At least that is what I remember reading a couple of years ago. Anybody
>know if this could work?

Yes, it could work.  We currently have fine enough control, small enough
lasers with good enough color quality that we can "light up" very small
fields directly on the retina.  There are some adaptive optics problems to
be solved, but having an image projected directly on the retina
(potentially in ridiculous real-world levels of detail) is doable, and is
probably less than 10 or 20 years away.

- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 07:22:54 -0700
From: Mike Sellers <msellers@ricochet.net>
Subject: Re: What is Science? (was Re: Realism vs. Play Value)

At 10:43 PM 4/14/97 -0500, Joseph "Chepe" Lockett wrote:
>Quoth Solomani, responding to Leonard Erickson:
>> A point that people seem to miss (or is it the media) Scientists are
>> human. Scientists lie, scientists bend arms, and argue to make there
>> point, just like any other orginisation.
>
>Yes.  That's one reason for refereed journals and the necessity for
>reproducibility for any theory to be accepted -- to keep science free from
>the personal biases of scientists.  :-)

I'm hoping the smiley at the end there means you understand that refereed
journals and such do not eliminate personal bias from the scientific corpus
of knowledge.  Kuhn was right about the structure of scientific
revolutions; science is based far more on personality and current social
norms than we care to admit.  I don't meant to create controversy here, but
hereare two quick non-crackpot examples: I know of solid neuroanatomical
research that shows hitherto unexpected differences in the brains of men
and women, but it will never be published, as even _submitting_ it for
publication would end the funding and the careers of those involved; and
similarly, there is excellent research on the ability of homosexual men to
change sexual polarity and "become" heterosexual, but given the current
social climate, those involved will _never_ publish their findings for fear
of being excoriated professionally and personally.

- --

Mike Sellers        Internet Game Designer       msellers@ricochet.net

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 11:40:00 -0400
From: Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org>
Subject: [none]

<QUOTE ON>
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------  
 -----------
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 07:19:52 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: A purchaser's plea!

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Volker A. Greimann wrote:

> I would hope thar IG starts to adopt a SJG-like playtesting scheme,
> that includes sending pre-production data and texts out to a number
> of playtesters who can examine and critize the product BEFORE it is
> printed (I would volunteer ;-)!!!

We've been using playtesters since the changeover (remember, M0 and FS
were made when the old management was in charge; they were just printed
afteward).  Pocket Empires had seven or so playtesters.  Psionic
Institutes has several playtesters (no, we don't need any more at this
time[G]).  Greg Porter has always maintained good relations with the
GDW-Beta folks, and runs a lot of stuff past them, too.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------  
 ----------------
<QUOTE OFF>

You may not remember this, but waaaaaay back when GDW fell and the new 
Trav(T4) was announced, I searched and asked about becoming a tester. 
 Nowhere did I find info, and noone responded.  Thats because there wasn't a 
testing group much to my dismay.

I am so glad to hear that there are now playtesters in the new 
administration.

So Psi Institutes and Pocket Emps is in the works eh?  Need a testor for 
Anomolies?  How about some wierd abnormal ideas of a FNORDy nature?  Stuff 
on planets sure to be interdicted for some reason or another, why?

You're not cleared for that information! :)

This has been the raving lunat...er..i mean..
This has been The Commander
I leave you to your regularly scheduled TML.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 10:52:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: pierre-louis constantin <Pierre-Louis.Constantin@DMI.USherb.CA>
Subject: Re: Computer Technology

 
	Just a short comment - I was the one who posted about a
"computer that could be cut, etc".  The article SHOULD be posted on
Freelance Traveller with some minor updates whenever Jeff Zeitlin
comes out of his hibernation.... 
 
	If not, I'll just post it on my own page eventually. :)
 
	If you want to find the original on the archives, it was
called 'Computer by the meter', in early 96 I think.  There were a
lot of discussions about computer tech back then too...  It's another
one of those 'infinitely clonable' topics, like .1 C rocks and why
jump space doesn't look like a pyschedelic heaven...


- -- 
Pierre-Louis Constantin, ift. a. 	"He whose name was writ in E-mail."
(: "I hate fanatics with a passion; all extremists should be shot." :)
	    How's my surfing? http://www.dmi.usherb.ca/~constanp/

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 07:58:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Imperial Yacht

> But do they know where the Sour Cream Straw goes in the place setting?

  That's why there are 50 stewards on board - they spend a lot of time
setting the table.  Seriously, one of the scenes from the documentary was
part of the sequence on setting up the dining room - after all the places
were set, one fellow was making sure all the glasses for all the guests
were in line down the entire table (100 ft long or more, it looked like).
Again, thats why there are all those stewards on board - to provide the
level of knowledge and experience.  The rest of the crew just helps - the
stewards do the hard jobs.

  Why am I spending so much time argueing this?  Well, I suppose its the
idea that folks on the top will have a crew made up of player characters
who kill people when the look at them funny.  Don't laugh - the stories
I've seen posted to this list make most gaming groups seem like they are
made up of repressed homicidal maniacs, and they play them in games all
the time.  The people who serve on the Imperial Yacht are not those sorts
of people - the typical player character would have a hard time surviving
in the military, let alone be posted to a prestige assignment like the
Yacht. 

______________________________
Dr. Mark Clark
Oregon Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:53:52 +0100
From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: What is science?

[Re the "3 laws of thermodynamics"] Anders Backman writes:

> They seem to have problems when encountering really cool temps and/or
> really few particles but as termodynamics is a classical system the
> latter doesn't apply.

Hmmm, more accurately thermodynamics is a macroscopic theory, so 
indeed it doesn't apply to very few particles.  Statistical mechanics 
can be used to relate the properties of particles (atoms, molecules) 
in bulk, which yields (i) thermodynamics and (ii) some special cases 
for low temperature behaviour to do with quantum effects.

Then of course there is the "negative temperature" of lasers... which 
is actually rather hot.

> With the risk of being called a lot of nasty
> things again I'm wondering why schools do not teach simple
> termodynamics? Newtons laws are taught in basic school but few seem to
> know about termodynamics (even on this list).

UK schools teach thermodynamics in 6th form physics (ages 16-18), but 
not many people study physics -- TMLers excepted, before the email 
floods in.  Colleges and universities teach chemical thermodynamics 
in the first undergraduate year (or 2nd year HND).

> I smell a conspiracy here.

Energy utilities pressure governments into not educating people in 
thermodynamics, becuase thermodynamically-literate people know how to 
reduce their domestic fuel bills.

I would like to believe this isn't true.

Nick

P.S. Zeroth law of t/d: if 2 bodies are separately in thermal 
equilibrium with a thrid body, they are in thermal equilibrium with 
each other.

T(2): Die Energie des Welts konstant ist.  Die Entropie des Welts 
stegt ein Maximum zu.  [Apologies for poor high-school Deutsch, but I 
just love the sound of the separated 'zu' at the end.]
Nick Munn, University of Sheffield, Dept. of Information Studies

"Just because he is unhappy, it does not follow that he is in love."
(Horace Walpole, _The Castle of Otranto_)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 01:28:36 +1000
From: paharris@postoffice.newnham.utas.edu.au
Subject: Re: A purchaser's plea!

At 11:06 15/04/97 MET, you wrote:

>Great! So now i completely feel like a beta-tester for Traveller!
>IG seems to tell us: "Well the idea is that you buy the product, look 
>for mistakes and then buy the corrected version!"
>If i want a corrected version of FS i also have to buy M0 again??? 
>Puh-Lease!
>I would hope thar IG starts to adopt a SJG-like playtesting scheme, 
>that includes sending pre-production data and texts out to a number 
>of playtesters who can examine and critize the product BEFORE it is 
>printed (I would volunteer ;-)!!! 
>I would also be happy with a service that puts changes between 
>versions and missing data on an Errata sheet (some sheet for FS) 
>available to anyone for free! At this point, i don't own a T4 product 
>that isn't going to be updated (TLWH, T4-Rules, M:0) and frankly, 

What? WHAT??!!??.... This must be a joke... This has to be a joke....

The really sad part is that I *am* going to fork out another A$200 to make
sure my collection is complete.
Note that I say collection, I don't use much of it at all. My players and I
ditched the rules ages back. We now play TNE in M:0.
I am crossing my fingers and hoping things improve.





- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul A Harris
Better known as Harry.

Yes, I finally have a signature.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm afraid that I regard the universe as some practical joke being pulled
on me by some higher being(s), I'm only glad that they have made it so much
fun!
								Me.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:10:54 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Brilliant Idea From Nick Munn

>  As I don't plan on using the tasksystem (though good compared to T4 it
> is!) 

Thanks!

>maybe I shouldn't meddle but why keep skill levels at all when
> attribute + xps is your target number? Because the char gen system has
> skills? Then convert each skill to 3 xps and be done with it.


Skill levels are integral to Traveller.  I don't think that KBv2.0 
changes that.  The experience score was conceived in order to have a 
simple number to add to the character's attribute to obtain the 
target number--nothing more than that.  I never intended it to 
replace the skill level.

Think of it this way:

          Target Number = (Skill Level x 3) + Attrubute

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:10:52 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Is there a Mathematician in the House?

> Summary: rounding in the fourth digit,
> 
> Number of dice		Prob(3 or more sixes)	Prob in %
> =========================================================
> 4			0.0162			1.62 %
> 5			0.0355			3.55 %
> 6			0.0623			6.23 %
> 7			0.0958			9.48 %
> =========================================================

I knew I should have posted when I caught that mistake, but I've been 
busy compiling a target number table for KBv2.0 that reports success 
chance but reduces that figure due to the chance of SF.

My numbers were incorrect because I didn't do the second step.  I 
figured the chance of rolling 3 sixes on 7D exactly.  I should have 
added the chance of rolling this on the appropriate amount of fewer 
dice as well.

The result was that my figures were off a little--but only 2% at 
the largest difference for Impossible tasks.

When I finish the table, I'll post the corrected numbers.

Thanks, Carlos,

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:44:13 -0600
From: Eric Holmes <holmes_eric_t@lanl.gov>
Subject: H2 Storage

Some thoughts in response to:

From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>

QUOTE ON
<One good reason for storing straight LH instead of embedding it in
fiber-tanks or straight water: MASS! 1 metric ton of LH may take up more
volume than 1 metric ton of H in H20 form, but it masses less--since the
mass ratio of hydrogen to oxygen in water is 1:8, to get 1t of LH you have
to carry NINE tons of water. There's a significant difference. Sure, my
fighter may need 14 cubic meters to store 1 ton of hydrogen, but I can do
that with a lot less MASS (even counting the tank dry mass) than your
fighter can with its 1 cubic meter of water. And since acceleration REALLY
depends on mass, not volume, I'm better off.>
QUOTE OFF

I have to admit, I wasn't thinking in terms of fuel for maneuvering, but
Jump Fuel and L-Hyd tank technology.

<<Seems the need for such _large_ L-Hyd fuel tanks
 went out the window!!!!!>>

What you say I agree with.  The increased mass would require larger maneuver
drives,etc,etc....but I thought only liquid hydrogen could be used as fuel.
Water,
ammonia, or any other hydrogen containing compound, had to be _refined_ before
being used in any of the Traveller starship drive systems.  Correct me if I'm
wrong.  (Realize to, I've been away from the game for the past few years. What's
the virus anyways?   I'm still working on finding all the Ancient sites
along the
Spinward Main.)


From: Per Bernhardsson <bard@ludd.luth.se>

QUOTE ON
<Not entirely, there is on (sic) thing that I wanted to ignore, but for the
sake of game balance I can't (sic) the procedure to load fuel takes a long
time. Currently a to fill a 35 l tank takes several hours, OK, so that
might become more efficient later on, but it would still require a much
longer time to do than normal. Gasgiant refueling would also be more or
less ruled out since the standard way of doing it requires that you have
the fuel stored in the ship, that would be impossible with this system
since it takes so long to store. Even though the problem with unrefined
fuel would be less due to the fact that H2 molecules is just about the
only thing that fits in that small space. During fueling the tank must
be under 12 MPa pressure and afterwards the pressure must be held at 4
MPa to keep the H2 from leaking out.>

<Append some stuff perhaps. I've got some ideas for that.>

<Fuel pressurizer>

<As fuel purification plant only double size, but you must have a
constant supply of gas (which means that if doing GG refueling you have
to stay down there until finished) and it's also more expensive,
something like 4 times since it would have incorporate some nanotech too
to rejuvinate (since the problem with deteoriating fibers hasn't been
completely solved) the nanofibers all the time.>

<The fueltanks would become smaller ofcourse but how much? Could someone
perhaps give us a calculation.>

<One of the problems with this type of fueltank is that you can't use
unrefined fuel, since you don't have a fueltank that can contain
anything other than pure H2. This would require a ship to either have a
fuel pressurizer or skip all those ports without capacity for refined
fuel.>
QUOTE OFF

What I saw with this technology was a reduction in the size of a _purchased_
L-Hyd drop tank system.  Ships designed in my sessions had L-Hyd drop tank
capacity as well as standard onboard fuel tanks.  Some ships had reserve fuel
bladders.  (Realize I used CT/HG starship planning.)  The player crews were
concerned with having enough fuel to <make it home> if there was a mis-
jump accident.  Also, this technique helps with the need for an immediate
<run-away> jump out of system.  I had players that were more than
cautious.  They were usually outgunned 3 to 1.

As far as size of the tanks, why not just double the L-Hyd capacity of the
<standard> drop tank at TL XX and work from there.  Remember, I'm
only considering drop tanks, which would be available at the appropriate
class starport and at the appropriate TL.  On board tanks, which currently
have, IIRC, minimal mass, would not change.  Unless, someone feels that
there might be a chance to cram more L-Hyd in at higher TLs, thus 
reducing their size.

Food for Thought.

Eric

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:10:53 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Is there a Mathematician in the House?

> 	By the way, I have always been under the impression that the percentage of
> SF-roleplayers among mathematicians is higher than in the population. So,
> how many mathematicians are around here? Email me privately, I will count
> ourselves... ;-)

Even though I've been crunching a lot of numbers for KBv2.0, I am 
definitely not a mathematician--as I'm sure you can already tell.

Luckily, numbers don't scare me, and when I need help, people from 
the list have always been more than helpful.

Thanks to all those mathematicians out there who've written in 
response to my post.  I got about 8 replys to my request for help.

And, lucky for me, one of my players was a math major.  Between him, 
the list, and myself, I manage to get the numbers correct--most of 
the time.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 13:01:22 -0400
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: Search and Rescue Boat

Leonard Erickson wrote:

>
>> Inspired by the upcoming premier of "Beltwatch" and Mark Clark's rescue
>> boat design, I'm please to present the Ce Acatl Corporation's "Quetzal"
>> class Search & Rescue Boat:
>>
>> Ship/Class Name & Type: "Quetzal" class Rescue Boat             (QSDS 1.5)
>>
>> Tons:   200 Std (Needle S)      Volume:   2800 m3       Cost:   203.3 MCr
>> Crew:   13                      Hi/Md P:  0             Low P:  0
>> Cargo:  4.3 Std                 Controls: Fib           TL:     12
>
>I thank both of the people who have responded with designs. But we are
>looking for something considerably smaller and faster. Excerpt from a
>message to the author of the other proposal:
>
>- -------
>
>My thought was that these would likely be converted fighters, so we can
>probably just wait for the fighter contest to end and strip out the
>weapons from a likely design.
>
>But just off the top of my head, you'd want sonething that can boost a
>9-g or better, with a crew of 1-2, and is capable of reaching *at
>least* the 100 diameter limit under max boost (ie accelerate half way,
>decelerate half way). Extra range is a bonus. 2 crew rather than 1 is a
>bonus. Ability to use standard fighter launching and docking facilities
>is a bonus. And it should have at least a couple of tones of cargo
>space, 10 would be excellent.
[snip]

Recall this design that I posted a while back?  Taking the basic hull and
drive configuration, De-EMM'ing it, and ripping out the J-drive and weapons
systems and using the space for sickbays, rescue equipment, lots of SAR and
medical personnel, and the like and I think that you'd have something
pretty effective in the role you ask for.  If I didn't have *^^*&%ing exams
right now I'd do one up...

>Famille Spofulam Yards Moonshine-class Rapid Insertion/Extraction Starship
>
>200Td Needle Airframe            Volume:  2800 M^3
>Cost: 285MCr
>Crew: 6                          Passengers Medium: 6
>Pass. Low: 0
>Cargo: 45 Td                     TL-12 Adv. Civ. cntrls (cockpit)      TL-12
>
>08 Size Rating                  02 Jump Rating
>00 Fire Control Rating          09 G Rating (6G T-plates, 3G HEPlaR)
>01 Light Laser 1/0/0/0          7.5 Power Plant Rating
>                                822.5 Fuel Rating (no scoops, no refine)
>                                01 Sandcaster Rating (30 canisters)
>                                10A/4P/10J EMM Sensor Rating
>
>                                20 Armour Rating        15 Structure Rating

R.D. Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 12:54:23 -0400
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15 (long)

Leonard Erickson wrote:

>In mail you write:
>
[snip]
>
>Democracy is actually well known for being *unfair*. There is no reason
>for the majority to be right. Nazi Germany passed that antiJewish
>legislation while it was still a democracy. The majority *approvced* of
>the laws.
>


	Well, that's why many democracies have judiciaries with
constitutional oversight powers.  If the law, despite its popularity,
violates the constitution or charter of rights, out it goes...


[snip]
>The only saving grace of the republican form of government in the US,
>is the somewhat unique idea of the Bill of Rights. That is, a document
>that lists things that the government may *not* do, even if a majority
>is in favor of them. Alas, the voting public doesn't understand that
>this is a *safeguard*, and is getting increasingly upset when they vote
>to take rights away from a minority and the vote gets thrown out on
>constitutional grounds,


	Well, I wouldn't be so hard on the US's system; it does work more
or less <grin> and has been doing so for longer than any other democracy in
the world today.  While IMHO it could do with somewhat tighter campaign
finance laws and elimination of this electoral college oddity, I think that
it still has numerous saving graces.

	And I'm noticing much the same complaint up here in Qu=E9bec
vis-a-vis discriminatory legislation, not to mention wierd conceptions of
democracy.  Right now, were I to put up an English-only sign, or even a
bilingual sign where English "predominated" over French, in front of my
business, I could get slapped with a fine.  And the current separatist
government was actually mulling measures to give the language police
_warrantless_ search & seizure powers. Apparently these boneheads seem to
think that an English sign is a greater menace to society than Hells Angels
white-slavers with stolen nuclear weapons, but I digress...

	With regard to democracy, these individuals also seem to think that
democracy is defined as "whatever the majority wants", and complains about
recourses to the courts over discriminatory legislation as being
undemocratic.  According to our chief electoral officer, Canadians from
other provinces flying into Montreal for a political rally is a violation
of Qu=E9bec's electoral spending law and a graver threat to Qu=E9bec democra=
cy
than the massive, systematic vote fraud carried out by PQ scrutineers
during the last referendum.

	 And then there's the fact that federalist groups who violated the
campaign spending laws (which, BTW, violate our Charter of Rights) got
prosecuted, while no separatist groups, some of which outspent their
counterparts by about 8 times, were charged.  And they think that in effect
what amounts to about 10% of the population (of the correct ethnic
minority) voting in favour of separation, while the rest of the country is
denied a say, is democratically speaking enough to justify breaking up the
country.

	I'll stop ranting before I start calling this place a "banana
republic without the bananas" as one of my profs (a francophone, BTW) calls
this place.

[snip]
>But they did a lot of nasty things while still being a democracy! So
>have other countries. And the famed democracy of the ancient Greeks was
>primarily used to exile people that the rest of the citizens didn't
>like.


	In order to tie this in to Traveller somehow, a lot of fun could be
had messing with players' expectations of a "democratic" society... the
possibilities are practically endless.  There's this song by the Clash
called "Know your rights" which are kinda a-propos:

"Know your rights, all three of'em!...  You have the right not to kill:
murder is a crime!/Unless it was done by a policeman, or an aristocrat...
You have the right to food money, so long as you don't mind/ a little
investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers/
rehabilitation!...  You have the right to free speech, so long as you're
not dumb enough to actually try it!"

R.D. Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:46:07 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <dsummers@mail.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: The low-tech 6th millenium

I should also be noted that the technological progress of the last
century or two has been an anomoly.  (It is argued that this is
the defining characteristic of "Western" culture.  Most cultures
have been profoundly uninterested in pushing change except in
response to a specific problem).  While you can rationalize why
such change would continue, you can say for sure.  Especially
since expansion in space throws you back to many of the government
situations that existed previously...

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 10:06:52 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Low Tech Space Fighters

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Mark Clark wrote:

> The learning
> curve is pretty steep here - screw up the first time and you're toast.

Yes, it is kinda steep. The crash scene during the intro to the "6 million
dolar man" was a crash of a dynosoar prototype. Saw the pilot on Johnny
Carson once: he lived, although he lost a leg in the crash, IIRC.

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 10:30:40 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: Conservation (was Re: IR masking)

Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com> writes

>Quoth Rupert Boleyn:
>> If the law of Conservation of Momentum isn't broken in T4 then how do
>> thrusters work? I thought that FF&S did away with them for this very reason.

>Momentum is conserved, the two components just aren't connected.  That is
>to say, your typical starship might mass some 1E9 grams, but the star (and
>attendant gravity well) against which its thruster plates push masses on
>the order of 1E33 grams, so it's kinda hard to notice its recoil....  :-)

This turns out not to work, if you do the numbers - you can't conserve
momentum and energy simultaneously with thrusters, even if they are magically
connected to a planet. (Energy turns out to be much more of a problem than
momentum - in the solar-system-rest frame, most accelerating thruster craft
are gaining kinetic energy much more rapidly than their power plant is
generating energy. That's why thrusters lead to 0.1 c death-lifeboats - 
thruster-powered ships get kinetic energy for free. Some day I should post my
Thruster Perpetual Motion Machine.

Bruce

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1198
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest      Tuesday, April 15 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1199



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Crimson class hull, and a question about HULLMAKER.XLS
Holes in Traveller consistency
Re: IR Masking
Scout Cruiser deck plans
Subject: A purchaser's plea!
Re: What is Science? (was Re: Realism vs. Play Value)
Re: IR Masking - tech problem
Re: So what else is new and improved?
Re: Computer technology at TL12-15
Re: IR masking
Re: So what else is new and improved?
Re: Realism and "Literary" SF roleplaying
Re: Norris
Upcoming IG Products
Re: Norris' sexual orientation
Re: Life is Hard in Traveller
Re: Why we discuss fighters
Re: IR Missiles
RE: Low Tech Space Fighters
The Necessity of 90s technology (Was TL12-15...)
Re: IR masking

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 10:51:46 -0700
From: scharlto@ifsna.com
Subject: Crimson class hull, and a question about HULLMAKER.XLS

Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU> said
>Subject: Re: Crimson Class Patrol Cruiser
>
  >Nice, well balanced design.  One question - where is the hull from?  As
>I recall, the 600 ton hull from QSDS is unstreamlined, not airframe.

- ----
Thanks for the compliment.  As for the hull, it is the only item not in
QSDS 1.5; I pulled it from Wildstar's Big Book of Hulls.  I have tried to
download
a hullmaker spreadsheet Wildstar has out in cyberland, but my copy of Excel
 for '95
refuses to open the file.  Otherwise, I would have put more armor on the
ship.

Anybody else managed to get the hullmaker spreadsheet to work?  It sounds
quite nifty...

Steve Charlton

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 11:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Holes in Traveller consistency

Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) writes:

> And for that matter, thruster plate "world killers" are *still* possible.

Thruster plates are to my mind the single biggest gaping consistency hull
in Traveller technology.  Jump drive *can* be used to create time machines
and causality violations, but as someone else noted, you have to really
work to pull it off, and it's not the sort of thing most players will push
at.

T-plates, on the other hand, violate conservation of energy right out
there in the open, so to speak, leading to all kinds of problems, most
notably the planet-killer lifeboat so beloved of this list.  You can also
do a variety of perpetual-motion-like tricks with them, given how they get
kinetic energy for 'free'.

However, players and GMs *want* a simple interplanetary transport system,
with low fuel requirements and brief trip times.  T-plates or something
like them are the simplest reasonable solution, sad to say.  I admire TNE
for fighting the good fight and going to reaction drives, but T-plates are
part of the Traveller 'feel', and will likely be ever with us.  It's one
of those areas where GMs will on occasion, with smart players, have to
just say 'no' to seemingly reasonable ideas.

It *would* be interesting to work out the mechanics of a system where
delta-v cost depended on present speed wrt the nearest massive object,
though.  Maybe I'll take a stab at it sometime soon...

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 20:08:34 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: IR Masking

James Lindsay writes:
>[Me]:
>>I'd like to point out that using a parallel dimension as a heat sink
>>wouldn't violate the law of conservation of energy. The energy isn't
>>destroyed, it's just move to another place. Yet if that would really
>>allow for perpetuum mobiles (how?) then it wouldn't be any good for
>>the Traveller universe.
> 
> How?  Well, if a dimension exists that you can flood with your
> unwanted heat energy an keep it there, by the same logic the reverse
> should be possible by drawing energy out of another dimension.  The
> occupants of that dimension might complain a little :)

By the same logic? Sorry, that's not the way it works. I propose a new
feature in the game background to explain some desired effect. If you
can demonstrate that it won't work, or that it would create more problems 
than it solves, fine. But you can't introduce _new_ features to invalidate
my suggestion. I postulate that a dimension has been found thatcan be
used as a heat sink. The reverse is not true. No dimension has been found
(either because it dosen't exist, or, well, because it hasen't been found
yet) that will allow anyone to draw energy from it. The question is, how 
will such a heat sink allow the drawing of energy out of thin air?



      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: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 11:10:23 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Scout Cruiser deck plans

Any chance of seeing these soon.  Considering it was supposed to be in the
book...

I know there was talk of putting it on the web site, but I have not seen it.

(I just started a game based around one of these monsters)

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 11:11:34 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Subject: A purchaser's plea!

I must agree.

I have bought all of the IG products, and FS and starships are so terrible
that a second edition is not an option - it is a necessity.  At the very
least, EA shows that Greg Porter is up to his usual standards, and the new
management allowed the material to show up without losing that quality.  I
liked the art, and the layout, so there is a great deal of hope for future
books.

As far as FS goes, I want to see the data in computer readable form.  I
paid full price for that turkey, and I can print better maps myself,
because I have a 600dpi laser printer here and programs to turn a sector
into postscript.

Please, justify my purchase of FS by giving me the data I need to fix and
print better maps!

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 18:26:29 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: What is Science? (was Re: Realism vs. Play Value)

On Mon, 14 Apr 1997 22:43:58 -0500 (CDT), you wrote:

> Science builds upon its predecessors, it does not eat them.

In other words, the "Big 'Ol Book Of Science" only gets bigger.  We
don't throw away chapters that were written decades ago because we
learn something new about a particular subject, we simply create
appendixes and amendments.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 11:09:59 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: IR Masking - tech problem

>Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 17:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>

>> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 09:39:51 -0700
>> From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
>> 
>> Masking that just reduces emissions is fine.  There are some problems with
>> reducing the hull to 3K, but it is at least feasible.
>
[power flow is proportional to T^4]

Yep.  The radiator is going to be very, very hot.  I would not be surprised
by millions of degrees if it has to be completely masked by the hull from
the front.

If there is no radiator, because you are sneaking past someone for a brief
time, your heat sink is going to heat up fast.

I just meant that it was not physically impossible, merely very, very
unlikely.  For example, whatever it is has to be held together with grav
fields, because nothing is going to stay stable at those temperatures.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 18:26:30 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: So what else is new and improved?

On Mon, 14 Apr 1997 20:42:48 -0500 (CDT), you wrote:

> I know Marc and IG want to get T4 Deluxe out Real=20
> Soon Now.  I've heard May bandied about, but I dunno how realistic that=
=20
> is, given the amount of work involved in fixing that book.

[ON MY KNEES, BOTH HANDS CLASPED]

Please, please, PLEASE *do not* rush the release of T4 Deluxe (as was
the case with the GenCon release of the original T4).  I don't think I
can take another hastily released product :)

BTW, it wouldn't have been "The Babylon Project" that Marc was trying
to beat to the shelves last year, would it?  I believe someone from IG
raised the issue of "getting a SF RPG out before the competition".

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 10:15:56 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Computer technology at TL12-15

>Thruster plates are a different matter. They are hard to justify, and
>open up *way* too many cans of worms. While physics does have a few
>loopholes that would allow something *like* thrusters, they'd have to
>work rather differently. 

I had not realized just how much of a problem they were.  I had assumed
that things would work alright if you assumed that they were a near perfect
converter of electrical to kinetic energy.  (Yes, there are some serious
entropy problems.  I have not decided yet how much this bothers me.)  The
acceleration is relative to the nearby solar mass that is pushes against,
and said mass must be large.  I have not yet worked out the numbers to see
if this will be good enough for the hundred diameter range that most
players are working in, as I am willing to say that any given thruster also
has a maximum accel, but that it requires worst case power.

IE, accelerating a 1kg mass from 0 to 1m/s requires a DeltaE of 0.5j, while
going from 200 to 201M/s requires 200.5j.

Unfortunately for our heroes, to go to 100 diameters from earth at 1g takes
about a day and a half (1.6e5 s -> 1.5 days), and leaves the vessel moving
at 1.6e6 m/s.  The energy in the ship is roughly 1.3e12j/kg, and so would
have needed a power input of roughly 8MW/kg over the intervening day and a
half.

This is not good, and I am not sure just how to react.

>CG is not impossible. Though again it'd work somewhat differently based
>on what we know. But unlike thruster plates, the difference *isn't*
>enough to cause major problems (they'd counteract a fixed amount of
>pull, not a fixed *percentage* of pull)

I had assumed they altered the gravitational potential, causing the ship to
just fall to where it was wanted.

>Meson guns can't work with mesons, but it's not impossible (just really
>unlikely) for there to be particles that act that way.

Hmph.  Bob Meson, discoverer of the "skip through the planet and decay at
an exact time" particle will be most vexed if you do not give him discovery
credit.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 20:24:21 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: IR masking

Craig Berry writes:
>>From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
>>OK, please explain how. It's not that I doubt you, it's that I don't
>>understand how that would work. I would have thought that having a hole
>>where you can pour in energy, but not take it out again, would result
>>in a net energy loss. I can't understand how you can turn that into an
>>energy-producing gizmo.
> 
>We presume that there exists a hole in the wall of your reactor room which
>leads to a parallel universe, into which you want to dump IR.  Given the
>nature of waste heat, you do this by putting a big radiator in front of
>it, and pumping your cooling fluid through it, allowing the heat to
>radiate into the hole.
> 
>Now, being a one-way gate to a parallel universe, we derive that the hole
>has an effective temperature of 0 K.  

Now, how do you _derive_ that? Is it beause it is one-way? Why? We don't
know how dimensional rifts would work, so we're free to define them any 
way that is consistent. Just because energy flows one way through a
dimensional rift when the temperature is above some threshold, it dosen't
follow that it would flow the other way if it was below that threshold. 

>So, I replace my working fluid with liquid helium.  I use the radiator as 
>my condenser, let the cosmic 3 K background warm it up in an evaporator 
>nearby, and place a paddlewheel in the condenser drain path. 

1) How is this different in principle from using, say, solar panels to draw
   power from the sun? Surely you'll never get more power out of the
   contraption than the cosmic 3K background pours into it, will you?

2) Will the amount of power you can draw from the cosmic background
   radiation amount to anything that will significantly outperform
   conventional Traveller power sources?

>Not perpetual, perhaps, but that paddlewheel
>will continue turning as long as the cosmic microwave background persists,
>and generate power in the process.

But it's not getting something for nothing, so it's not violating any laws
of physics, is it?

>>How about an extremely efficient heat storage device? I know that that will
>>also give you extremely efficient energy storage, which is why I didn't
>>suggest it before, but can it be adjusted not to break other parts of
>>the Traveller technology?
> 
>The problem is that you need to dump waste heat into something less hot
>than the source, and any small reservoir will come up to equilibrium
>temperature quickly; nothing has a high enough specific heat to 'eat'
>fusion waste heat at GW levels for long, *and* fit inside a starship.

That sounds like a technical problem. The big question is whether assuming
that the problem has been solved would create more problems than it solves.
If not, we have 5-6 tech levels above our own today to play with.

>>(And, btw., how long can you "mask" a starship using it's capacitors as a
>>heat storage device?)
> 
>You can't do that at all.

Assuming that the excess heat can be converted to electricity, I mean.



      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: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 18:30:42 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: So what else is new and improved?

On Mon, 14 Apr 97 23:32:58 -0500, you wrote:

> Joe, I've looked on the IG webpage and didn't find a place to order the=
 T4
> Deluxe hardback.  Could you tell me exactly where and how to place that
> order?

Click on "On-Line Ordering" on the left side of the screen.  It will
be the top-most item on the list (there are no more "old" hardcovers).

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 20:38:57 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Realism and "Literary" SF roleplaying

Craig Berry writes:
> Then one of your players recalls your hand-waved explanation of IR stealth
> from the previous session.  "Hey," she says, "didn't you say that our IR
> cloaking system could beam waste heat from the reactor off in one
> direction?"  You gulp and nod as a broad grin blooms on her face, then the
> other players'.  "OK, we aim the waste-heat beam at that nice dry wooden
> keep.  Engineer, crank the fusion-plus unit up to 'roast', please."
> 
> Result:  One wrecked scenario.  Your choices as GM?
> 
> (1) Say 'no'.  This destroys the players' faith in your world, and hence
>     the joy of the game.  It also reduces the players' confidence that you
>     will reward clever solutions, a very bad trend in any game.
> 
> (2) Say 'yes'.  Your careful preparations are out the window.  You either
>     ad lib your way through an entirely unplanned adventure (GM hell), or
>     tell everybody to go home half an hour after the session started, so
>     you can prepare the new paths.  This doesn't lead to happy players.
> 
> All this from one casually hand-waved, seemingly harmless and irrelevant
> piece of technology.  Almost *any* change to the background can cause
> scenarios like this.  And notice that this is not munchkin behavior; I'd
> call the player creativity above very good role-playing.

But, Craig, that isn't the result of the casually handwaved price of 
technology. It's the result of the Ref _overlooking_ that piece of 
technology. The same problem could result from forgetting that the
players has a (perfectly legitimate) message laser or a cargo of
oongoolian fireberries.

And you've overlooked at least three ways of solving the problem:

 (3) Say 'Good idea. Unfortunately it has broken down and will take a long
     time to repair. You're not even sure you can do it with the spare
     parts you're carrying.'

 (4) Say 'Good idea. I messed up. I had overlooked that solution. Would
     you like to play Monopoly for the rest of the evening, or what about
     saying that the thing is broken and will take a long time to repair?
     An then play on?'

 (5) Say 'unfortunately that dingus can't be used in atmosphere (new
     handwaving explanation).

Number 5 is, of course, a dangerous solution, and number 3 might anger
some players, who will think you're trying to hose them, but I've always
had good results from number 4 (whenever I've messed up, which is not,
thankfully, that often.


      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: Tue, 15 Apr 97 19:45 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Norris

In-Reply-To: <v02140b05af77e2691050@[192.121.125.201]>

<< Another question: What about prostitution in Traveller. The generic
startown seems full of brothels etc but do the other races also pay for
sexual services? Also do Vargr have specific periods when they are in heat
or are they like humans more or less year round fertile and willing? >>

Judging by the Vargr in my campaign, the latter...

    ---------=========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: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 18:59:56 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Upcoming IG Products

The IG web page seems to be falling a bit behind in its "Products"
section-- specifically, NO description of the recently released
"Emperor's Arsenal".  It would be nice to see more in depth
descriptions of current and upcoming products.

As for "Upcoming Products" there seems to be some confusion regarding
some of the releases.  Without descriptions, it is impossible to know
what some of these releases will cover.  For instance, what races are
covered in the hardbound "Aliens Vol. 1"?  What is the difference
between the content of the new "FF&S" and the "Naval Architect's
Manual"?  What is covered in "Anomalities"?  Will "Imperial Squadrons"
merely contain information on larger starships, or will it end up
including data from the original "Starships"?

In other words, "What's up?"

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 12:01:41 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <dsummers@mail.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Norris' sexual orientation

Tue, 15 Apr 1997 11:53:23 -0800, Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
[Stuff about Norris being gay.  I'll just comment that I agree that
it is consistent with his being gay, but that I don't agree his
being gay is the only clear answer...]

>Since Norris's heir and clone, Seldrian, shares his genes & most current
>genetic evidence suggests (although does not prove) that homosexuality
>is primarily genetic we can probably assume that she was also gay.

Um, no.  The evidence is of a correlation between gay behavior and
certain genes.  It doesn't mean that gay behavior can't also be
learned (and so means that you can't be sure that Norris has the
gene) or that possetion of the gener means you will be gay.

You can only say that there seems to be a higher chance
that she will be gay, and even then you might only be
raising it from a 2% chance to a 5% chance.

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 12:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Life is Hard in Traveller

Carlos Alos-Ferrer <alos@merlin.fae.ua.es> wrote:

>        I feel exactly the same. The only problem is that the task 
system is
>an integral part of MT. If you use that task system, then you have to use
>the MT combat system (which, as we both know well, is quick & dirty enough
>for us <g>), and that means, for instance, that Emperor's Arsenal is almost
>useless.

Conversions are possible.  Not having EA yet, I can't say how, but I don't
see any unsolvable problems here. 

>        The same can be said about Character Generation. It seems that T4
>characters end with significatively more skills than MT characters, so,
>using the MT task system, they will be making Formidable tasks on a routine
>basis, which is not good. Yeah, you can use MT character generation, which
>has the advantage that then you have a nice amount of extra careers (18 in
>the basic book plus all the other careers that time has added to everybody's
>house rules).

Untrue actually.  The extra skills don't really matter that much (actually
I think T4 Character generation + MT Task system is better than either MT
or (especially) T4 alone.  You can get no more than +8 from skills and
stats on an MT task. Also, I limit folks to a maximum skill of 6.  Skill
levels of 7 or 9 just don't seem like Traveller to me.  Anyway, this means
that a character with a stat of 10 (+2) and a skill of 6 (total of +8)
will succeed on a Formidable task 50% of the time (Diff = 15, 7 + 8 = 15). 

In T4, the same character will have an attribute of 16 (or 28 with KB
2.0).  With a 16 in the T4 system the same character will succeed on
Formidable tasks 92 % of the time and on Staggering tasks 73% of the time. 

So in MT, the extreme expert succeeds on Formidable tasks half the time,
while in T4 they succeed at everything up to Impossible tasks 3/4 of the
time.  It looks to me like the MT task system + T4 char gen works much
better than T4 and is not too easy, what problems do you see? 


- -John Snead jsnead@netcom.com

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 12:15:55 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: Why we discuss fighters

Mused <marz@HotStar.net> writes

>Everytime someone says, "that is obsolete", a use is usually found for it or mor
>e likely it 
>was found to fill a niche that hasn't yet been filled by new stuff

Wrong.

People said horse cavalry was obsolete in 1939 (or even 1914), and they were
right (modulo a few skirmishes where horse cavalry were useful...please
don't drag out all the usual minor WW2 cavalry engagements.)

People said the longbow was obsolete in 1700. They were right.

People said the dreadnaught battleship was obsolete in 1941. They were right.

(In all these cases, obsolete doesn't mean "totally useless", but "mostly
irrelevant to the main battle".)

Just because experts agree on something, doesn't mean they're automatically
wrong. (Was it Carl Sagan who said "They laughed at Galileo...But they also
laughed at Bozo The Clown"?)

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 12:25:47 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: IR Missiles

In mail you write:

> Which brings me to my question: Could a TL 12 - 15 ship approach earth
> in todays environment without being detected?

Almost certainly yes.

The only visible-light sensors pointing at the sky a lot are automated
asteroid-tracking things - and they work at night; just approach from the
direction of the sun.

TL15 stealth should be nearly invisible to most TL12 radars - the USAF 
satellite-tracking radars are designed to look for 30-cm metal objects in LEO;
they'd never see a stealthed (few-cm-equivalent-crosssection) object in
a higher orbit, let alone when it was approaching earth.

As everyone keeps saying, the main way to detect a starship is in the IR.
All the military IR detectors are pointing down, not up, looking for ICBM
launches, so they'd never see a starship - particularly if (again) it
approached from the sun. The only way it would get detected is if a
scientific IR telescope (ISO, MSX) happened to be pointed in the right
direction (and, once again, they don't point very close to the sun.)

In a few years the LIGO gravity-wave detector might pick it up leaving
jumpspace...

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 12:30:57 -0700
From: Jeff Cornish <jcornish@appiantech.com>
Subject: RE: Low Tech Space Fighters

On Tuesday, April 15, 1997 10:06 AM, Bruce
Johnson[SMTP:johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU] wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Mark Clark wrote:
> 
> > The learning
> > curve is pretty steep here - screw up the first time and you're toast.
> 
> Yes, it is kinda steep. The crash scene during the intro to the "6 million
> dolar man" was a crash of a dynosoar prototype. Saw the pilot on Johnny
> Carson once: he lived, although he lost a leg in the crash, IIRC.
> 
Well, not quite.  That was the MF-2, a lifting body X-vehicle.

> Bruce Johnson
> University of Arizona
> College of Pharmacy
> Information Technology Group
> 
> Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs
> 
> 

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 12:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com>
Subject: The Necessity of 90s technology (Was TL12-15...)

Several folks have said that the Imperium must, by necessity, be described
as basically the 1990s with Jump Drive, Fusion, and CG.  I disagree, I'm
not talking about making the Imperium look like "The Diamond Age". First
off, John Varley's 9 worlds series was not too far out.  The solar system
was a rather odd lace, but it was still basically comprehensible. The
Ophiuchi Hotline was moderately popular and didn't leave reader's baffled. 
In an even simpler vein, Eluki Bes Shahar's Hellflower trilogy and
Sherwood Smith and Dave Trowbridge's Exordium series are both simple
settings which strongly resemble the Imperium, but in both cases, more
thought has been given to both technology and the impact of technology on
society. 

Gamers aren't morons, and we gain little by underestimating folks.  I'm an
anthropologist who writes RPGs, not a physicist or an engineer, and
something more than 90s + flash will not make me stop playing Traveller. 
Look around, there are many options out there in SF literature between 90s
+ flash and a Vingean post singularity culture. RuneQuest is a popular
game, if has a very unique and non-modern fantasy world.  If gamers can
comprehend Glorantha why not a less conservative Imperium? 

Comments?


- -John Snead jsnead@netcom.com        

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 21:38:35 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: IR masking

Leonard Erickson writes:
>>I'd like to point out that using a parallel dimension as a heat sink
>>wouldn't violate the law of conservation of energy. The energy isn't
>>destroyed, it's just move to another place. Yet if that would really
>>allow for perpetuum mobiles (how?) then it wouldn't be any good for
>>the Traveller universe.
> 
>It means that the universe isn't a closed system anymore. 

But the two universes taken together would still be. So?

>And the machine may not be "perpetual", but it might as well be, depending 
>on how long it takes for the effective temperature of the other universe
>to rise. 

I can build a machine that would be just as "perpetual" given a solar
panel. That could theoretially last as long as the sun burns. That's not
what is meant by a perpetual engine. You're not _creating_ energy.
 
>I also have to wonder about what the effect of removing that much
>energy from this universe is. 

That much energy? Enough to cool off a paltry couple of trillion ships for
a few years each throughout the forseeable lifespan of Charted Space?
Surely that wouldn't even be noticable on the scale of the whole universe.

>Finally, I can use such a heatsink as a superweapon. Set up a *big* one
>inside a nickel-iron asteroid. get it to chill the asteroid to 3K or
>less. Then drop the asteroid into the star. It'll *stay at 3K, and fall
>to the center. And it'll start sucking energy out of the star. 

Is that inevetable or would you say that there could be scale restraints 
that would allow a ship to use it and still not let anyone use it as a 
superweapo?

> On the down side, it'll take a *long* time for the star to collapse. 

So it's less of a superweapon than the Darrian Stellar Trigger?

>Easy, by *definition* a heat sink is something *colder* than what you
>have it attached to. One of the fundamental laws of thermodynamics sets
>a max value for the energy you can extract from the temp difference
>between a heat source and a heat sink, based on the temp difference. 
> 
>So, since there *is* a temp difference, and one that is essentially
>fixed, you can extract energy from the flow of heat between them. Since
>you were talking about a heat sink that can be used to cool the ship to
>look like the background (3K) it has to be *less* than 3K. And that
>means you can extract a *lot* of energy from the difference in temp
>between 300K and <3K. 

But you can't create any energy, can you? You have to produce the energy
in the first place. If so, why not just define the power requirements of
this heat sink device to roughly balance out to whatever "free" energy
the difference would provide you with. 

>>Actually, introducing a parallel dimension isn't breaking physics, it's
>>extending it.
> 
>Yes and no. It breaks things because the universe is no longer a closed
>system. This changes a *lot* of things.

But does it change anything that can't be handwaved away?


      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

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1199
***********************************

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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
