Traveller-digest      Wednesday, June 4 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1404



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Planet Surface Area
Progress
Surface Area of Planet...
Redefining Class C starports
Re: Progress
Re: Nukes for T4
Re:  Tech, RoM and M:0
Planet Surface Area
Off Topic (was Re: Progress)
Tech Level differences between M0 and M1100
Kinetic Kill BB's For T4
Re: CORE: PE question
Is Cleon scared?
Re: The high-tech offenders
Re: Is Cleon scared?
Marathon Infinity for $9.98

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 16:40:56 +0100
From: Timothy.Collinson@solent.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Planet Surface Area

At last, a question I can pretend is work!

Bruce asks:

>    Can some kind soul please tell me how to calculate the surface area of
a
>planet based on its size.

The surface area of a sphere is 4 x pi x r^2.

(Volume is 4/3 x pi x r^3)


>For example, if a planet has a Traveller size
>rating of 7, i.e. 7,000 miles / 11,200 kms across, what's the formula to
>work out the surface area of my size 7 planet, so I can tell how many
>square miles / kms covers it?
153.9 million square miles roughly.  Sounds about right.

But don't forget that your planet may not have a diameter that is exactly
7000 miles and it may not be entirely spherical.  Though Traveller worlds
can be regarded as spheres to all intents and purposes.


tc
timothy.collinson@solent.ac.uk

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 13:19:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Progress

   Hi.

> Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 15:25:56 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Brett Fishburne <bfish@atlantech.net>

   [examples of midieval inventions, snipped]

> OK, you cite 3 inventions in 800 years.  I'll also give you the Heavy plow
> and use of horses instead of oxen.  The stuff borrowed doesn't count (it
> actually makes my point if that is stuff that brought Europe out of the Dark
> Ages) as in "The Long Night" there was no one to borrow from.  Let's see
> when else do we see this level of advancement...hmmmm...how about stone age?

   I don't think that there is any doubt that progress in the 5th-12th
   centuries was much slower than what we are used to today.  What may
   be a more interesting question is whether progress in that period was
   slower than in previous ages.  Did technology really regress from
   that of the Roman period?  Clearly, government regressed.  Less
   clearly, trade probably regressed too.  According to `theory,' this
   implies that the rate of technological invention also dropped, but
   documents from this period are spotty, so an objective test of this
   theory is hard to make.

> Brett "It still sounds like 'Dark Ages' to me" Fishburne

   They definitely are dark in the sense that we have little information
   about them.  But their technological advancement, compared to
   previous ages and other cultures, is still an open question.  The
   Dark Ages definitely did have a few bright spots, though. Among the
   more important of them not mentioned already:

   * `Books' were invented (codices with spines and individual
   pages, as opposed to scrolls), making data retrieval much faster,
   easier and efficient, and making tables of contents, indices and
   page (or chapter) numbering possible.

   * Slavery was abolished (by degrees, apparently) and pretty much
   stayed abolished until the alleged Renaissance.

   -Rob

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 13:57:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin W. Cain)
Subject: Surface Area of Planet...

Someone asked how to compute the surface area of a planet...

The formula for the surface area of a sphere is 4 * Pi * R^2
(Pi is approx. 3.1415927; "R" is the radius of the sphere).  

Using algebra, we can simplify this to Pi * D^2 ("D" is the diameter).  

Assuming you have just the UWP Size Code, and *not* a specific, actual
value for the planet's diameter, we can use algebra again to get the
following...  

(1,000 miles is approx. 1,600 kilometers.)

Surface Area = Pi * D^2
= 3.1415927 * (UWP Size Code * 1600)^2
= 3.1415927 * (UWP Size Code)^2 * 1600^2
= 3.1415927 * 1600^2 * (UWP Size Code)^2
= 3.1415927 * 2.56 * 10^6 * (UWP Size Code)^2
= 8.0424773 * 10^6 * (UWP Size Code)^2

Disgustingly simplified formula: 
  Surface Area = (UWP Size Code)^2 * 8 million square kilometers

Franklin

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 10:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@*teleport.com>
Subject: Redefining Class C starports

All this talk about Class A and Class B starports and what they can build
has brought several questions to my mind.

If I create a high class, state of the art starport and but do not
incorporate shipyards (concentrating on passenger & cargo facilities) - it
will still be a Class 'C' will it not?

If a world with a Class 'A' or Class 'B' starport goes through a
recession, and the company that runs the shipyard shuts it down...does
that automatically downgrade the starport classification?  (You have
8 or 10 shipyards per subsector, the competition must be brutal!)
For that matter, are the shipyards and the starport run by the same
corporate/governmental entity?

- --------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 11:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Progress

> >At 11:38 PM 6/2/97 -0700, John R. Snead wrote:
> 
> <snip my Dark Ages reference>
> 
> >>If you are referring to Europe's "Dark Ages" you are entirely incorrect.
> >>Crop rotation, improved horse collars, windmills (borrowed from Central
> >>Asia) Stirrups (borrowed from Asia), Gunpowder (borrowed from Asia),
> >>mechanical clocks (the basic for modern gear technology) all were invented
> >>or brought into Europe from 500 AD-1300 AD.  In many ways, this era had a
> >>faster rate of technological progress than the Roman Empire. [1]
> 
> OK, you cite 3 inventions in 800 years.  I'll also give you the Heavy plow
> and use of horses instead of oxen.  The stuff borrowed doesn't count (it
> actually makes my point if that is stuff that brought Europe out of the Dark
> Ages) as in "The Long Night" there was no one to borrow from.  Let's see
> when else do we see this level of advancement...hmmmm...how about stone age?
> Rock as a tool (covers lots of inventions right there), fire (management and
> benefits therefrom), farming (as opposed to gathering), paint (for the cave
> paintings), and language.  None of these are small advances, but let's take
> a close look at what you're saying about the dark ages.  The "technological"
> jumps made in 800 years stack up pretty unfavorably against the 100,000
> years of advances made by Neanderthals.  Granted the Neanderthals had more
> time, but I think you'd have to agree that any one of Neanderthal inventions
> DRAMATICALLY altered their lifestyle whereas the inventions in the Dark Ages
> PERPETUATED an existing life style.

  As a member of the list who is employed as a historian of technology, I
really feal I have to jump in here.  While the neolithic revolution in
agriculture is one of the fundamental changes in the history of human
society (and some would argue that it is the only technological change
worth talking about, since all technical advance since can in some sense
be attributed to it), the Middle Ages are the most concentrated period of
human invention outside of the modern period (roughly from the early 19th
century to the present).  The people of the Middle Ages invented a wide
variety of concepts and technologies that are fundamental to modern
capitalist society.  The list above is not all inclusive - such
fundamental changes as the modern bank, the university, double-entry
book-keeping, and a host of others are legacies of the middle ages.

  Now, why do we call them the Dark Ages?  The Italian Humanists, that's
why, who looked to Greek and Rome as the models for all achievement.
After all, they could look about them and see the evidence - Roman walls
and Greek statues.  The reason that Roman structures were still about,
however, is that Roman engineers built everything with big honking safety
factors, since they did things by experience, not experiment.
Technologically, the Romans were just a Neolithic culture with
pretensions.

> >>Renaissance to make themselves feel good, and promulgated by narrow-minded
> >>Victorians, it is not accepted as valid by any modern scholars of the
> >>history of science and technology. 
> 
> Please pass on the references.  I searched the net as thouroughly as a
> couple of hours would allow and the only reference I found to strong
> technical achievements in medieval times was Ms. White.  

  That's Mr. White - helps to know the field.  You make the increasingly
common mistake that my students do - if it is not on the web it does not
exist.  I could go into a tirade here about how the web is basically full
of stuff that computer geeks want to look at, like porn and computer
stuff, but I will not.  What I will say is that much of the evidence that
supports (and contradicts) White has been until recently buried in obscure
journals with small circulations.  Fortunatly for us (and for my
students), there is a new book, the first review of which I saw only on
Monday.  It is by Frances and Joseph Gies, and is titled _Catherdral,
Forge, and Waterwheel:  Technology and Invention in the Middle Ages_
(Harper Perrenial, 1995).  You'll notice the book has been out for almost
two years - historians take a long time to get around to doing book
reviews. 

  Anyway, I strongly suggest you read the Gies book - I have not seen a
copy yet, but according to the reviewer (who I know personally and respect
as an expert in this field) it is the best available survey  in this area.
You will find the Middle Ages far from Dark, and actually a rather
intersting time rather different than that portrayed in popular myth.


______________________________
Dr. Mark Clark
Oregon Institute of Technology

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 14:32:30 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Nukes for T4

>Ahem...
>Going to blow up Sylea with your Pu238 Explosive Space modulatooooooor?
>It's blocking your view of Vland?  :-) (Giggle!)
>
>Marvin the Martian, cute alien guy or Grandfather....You decide!
>:-) (Chuckle)

I've always liked Tommy Pickle's ("Rugrats") philosophy: "Let's go up to 
Grandpa's room and see if it still smells funny!"  :)

>This has been more insanity
>brought to you by X-TEK
>makers of Chthulhu Chip Cookies!
>Insanely Delicious!

Oh, can you, can you tell me 
Where those good old cookies come from?
They're made by big ol' worms
In a hollow World!

**********************************************************
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, 04 Jun 1997 14:25:14 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re:  Tech, RoM and M:0

>With EA (and CSC) I think its neccessary to be a bit 'easy' with canon.
>Greg Porter was trying to produce the suppliments in RPG mode so to
>speak. These suppliments are presumably ment to be useable with more
>than one milieu, so they have to include higher than M:0 tech; and it's
>very hard to do that and stay in M:0 RPG mode. I think its best just to
>regard the supposed experimental TL 14+ RoM stuff as theoretical
>design studies.

Indeed, the EA book itself states that "Many descriptions are theoretical,
based on personal journals, fragmentary data logs, and known theoretical
work at the time...." So they anomalies with previous history can be explained
as experimental work, someone's doodlings/conjectures in a surviving 
journal, or maybe a manual describing possible weapons for a role playing
game that was still  being played during the ROM was found and
misinterpreted<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, 04 Jun 1997 14:52:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Planet Surface Area

   Hi.

> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 14:35:27 +0100
> From: Bruce E J Lewis <bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk>

> 	Can some kind soul please tell me how to calculate the surface area of a
> planet based on its size. For example, if a planet has a Traveller size
> rating of 7, i.e. 7,000 miles / 11,200 kms across, what's the formula to
> work out the surface area of my size 7 planet, so I can tell how many
> square miles / kms covers it?

   The formula is Size^2 * A * 10 for the total surface area, and
   Size^2 * A * (10-Hydro) for the land area.  Size is the UWP size
   factor, Hydro is the UWP hydrographics factor, and A = 314,000 sq.
   miles or 813,000 sq. kilometers.

   Example: Earth, E867977-7, has a land surface area of (8^2)*A*(10-7)
   = roughly 15.6 million square kilometers.  Obviously, the crude
   precission of the UWP will not yield answers to better than 10%
   accuracy, and usually not that good.  (I'm not certain of the correct
   answer, but I believe it is closer to 14 million.)

   The percentage accuracy of your answer will be no better than
   (50%)*sqrt(4/Size^2 + 1/(10-Hydro)^2) for land area, and (100%)/Size
   for total area.  So the result for Earth is only good to about 42%.
   So you'll still have to wing it!

   -Rob

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 15:57:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brett Fishburne <bfish@atlantech.net>
Subject: Off Topic (was Re: Progress)

A general note, I know sweeping statements are bad.  As I looked into it,
however, the supporting evidence for the opposing sweeping statement (The
Dark Ages was a high time for technological advancement) didn't make sense.
Please note the findings below...

At 05:01 PM 6/4/97 +0000, aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au wrote:
>
<snipped comments on Dark Ages inventions or lack thereof >

>Alcohol & Distillation, c. 1100 AD

Actually Asia 800 B.C. and it came to Europe via Egypt
(http://www.docs.ed.ac.uk/home/jhb/whisky/swa/history.html)

>Gothic Arch c. 1100 AD

From what I can tell, the Gothic Arch was not an invention, but a style.  In
the interest of fareness, however, I'll grant that this is an invention.

>Flying Buttress c. 12th Century AD

Earliest references I could find were to the design of the Notre Dame
cathedral circa 1163.  The first completed building with Flying buttresses
was around 1230.  This reasonably fits within the time table we are using
for the 'Dark Ages' and is a large advancement.  I can't believe I didn't
remember this one ;).

>Cam c. 10th Century AD

I'm assuming that this is a gear.  I can't find any references to the
history of this gear anywhere on the net.  Would you provide your source please?

>Camera Obscura c. 1000 AD

Designed by Leonardo DiVinci in 16th Century according to
http://www.kron.com/bab/9606/4.html

The concept was presented by Leon Battista Alberti in the 1400s and is
evidenced in his arwork (De Pictora, 1435).  For more information see
http://tqd.advanced.org/3257/principles.html.

>Rooftop Chimney c. 1200 AD

Couldn't find anything...

>Mechanical Clocks c. 1290 AD
>Astronomical Clocks c. 1364 AD

Mechanical clocks were known in both greece and egypt.  There is a whole
site dedicated to the history of the clock that can detail this stuff.
Astronomical clocks -- are you kidding?  Stonehenge?

>Magnetic Compass c. 11th Century AD
>Collars (on clothes) c. 1300 AD
>Crossbow c. 10th Century AD
>Fork c. 11th Century AD
>Furnace (Catalan Forge) c. 700 AD
>Stained Glass c. 12th Century AD
>Crown Glass c. 14th Century AD
>Hourglass "Medieval"
>Cast Iron (using Water powered bellows) c. 14th Century AD
>Jack c. 1250 AD
>Wheel-driven Lathe c. 14th Century AD
>Lenses & Spectacles c. 1280 AD
>Treadle Loom "Middle Ages"
>Musical Notation c. 800 AD
>Coulterboard & Mouldboard, Wheeled Plough c. 10th Century AD
>Keel c. 700 AD
>Spinning Wheel c. 1300 AD
>Tinplate c. 14th Century AD
>Horizontal Axle Windmill c. 1180 AD

As you can see, I haven't looked all of these up.  I'm sure many of them do
relate to dark age advances.  Anyone however, could build a list this small
from virtually any other era in time.  Do you really want to make the
contention that the Dark ages was competitive?  If so, please do in private
e-mail and I will go to the trouble of researching all of these.

Brett Fishburne

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 14:31:57 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Tech Level differences between M0 and M1100

I looked at the TL drops between the M0 and M1100 data. It is surprisingly
uniform, and while I don't have the proper distributions here is some raw
looks:

M0 tl	systems	Average Loss		Max 	Min Loss
0	572	9.681818		16	0
1	40	2.75			12	1
2	84	2.011905		9	0
3	179	2.150838		8	1
4	326	2.263804		5	0
5	459	2.43573			5	0
6	521	2.570058		5	0
7	598	2.586957		10	0
8	600	2.683333		5	0
9	560	2.819643		5	1
10	405	2.792593		5	1
11	343	2.997085		4	1
12	202	2.856436		4	1
13	67	2.432836		3	2
14	12	1.916667		2	1

Again, these numbers are without Vland included, so these represent the
true function that was used to model the TL drop in generating the data. A
large number of worlds went to TL0, but the drop otherwise is remarkably
uniform. Here are the distributions at each era:

TL	M1100	M0	
0	3	572
1	15	40
2	27	84
3	42	179
4	100	326
5	190	459
6	277	521
7	389	598
8	500	600
9	582	560
10	584	405
11	576	343
12	570	202
13	405	67
14	300	12
15	341	0
16	66	0
17	1	0

Clearly, we just shifted the mean down, without changing the distribution
curve much.

If the technological superiority of the early 3I is to remain the driving
force behind the consolidation of known space, then something has to be
done...perhaps regenerate the sectors other than Core using a different
modifier for TL loss, or just by fiat, moving the TL 13-14 worlds to TL
11-12, and perhaps, the non-Core TL12 worlds down to 10 or 11. A few
oddball worlds can be retained here and there, but I wouldn't
have more than one TL14 world per sector, if that, and certainly not a
high poulation one.

The latter approach holds a fair amount of appeal to me, since that puts
the rest of known space close to, but not quite on par with the 3I, with
the widespread access to starflight that exists in the current M0, but the
3I has the TL12 edge over their competitors. This gives two benefits:

1)There is a reason for the outlying areas to want to join the 3I...access
to high technology, the carrot.

2)There is reason NOT to resist assimilation...the Imperial fleets are
superior technologically, the stick. This allows for much higher
populations in areas, and allows for a lot of pocket empires out there for
the Wars of Pacification to, well, pacify, and, to my view, giving a far
more rational picture of the political structure of the M0 known space
than a lame kludge like 'Maybe the 3I are the only ones who have the will
to have a large empire'

This also gives a rational basis for the 3I taking so long to advance to
TL 13 and 14...they're really busy cranking out enough stuff to raise the
rest of the universe to their level, which will consume a lot of the
resources necessary for generally advancing tech beyond what they have.

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 16:52:43 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Kinetic Kill BB's For T4

              ATTENTION!!!!!!

Reddkneck Arms and Munitions (RAAM) is proud to announce a great line of
Kinetic Kill BB's "Bigshot tm" for those missiles. 

Are your local interstellar governments saying no to your request for equal
arms against those "evil" pirates and privateers. Are they saying that only
"they" can have the nukes for their missile warheads. 

Well we here a RAAM are present our new line of "non nuclear" kinetic kill
warheads. Guaranteed to have nary a stray rad of radiation, well almost
sure.<G>

Our Kinetic Kill BB's are made of only the finest quality Bonded Superdense
armor material available at any Tech Level. Making for a uniform projectile
of unsurpassed lethalness. But we go even further than that RAAM adds a
additional "secret" coating to insure maximum penetration and energy delivery.

Bighot tm is available in the standard RAAM page module sizes of .1m^3, 1
m^3 and 10 m^3. We will accept any customer custom sizes, and configurations.

Remember at Reddkneck Arms and Munitions (RAAM) if its a big battleship
RAAM it. 

Our motto is "Peace Through Superior Massive Overkill"

Reddkneck Arms and Munitions (RAAM) is located at Liberty Hall/Beyond, go
past the Spinward Marches, and just follow the glowing planets and cratered
starships. 

First time customers will receive a free whoopie cushion with the RAMM
logo, and purple and green Gimme hat with our Logo!!!

Easy credit and financing available, we accept valuable metals, credits,
and lost kittens.
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bighot"tm Kinetic Kill BB's are a 1 cm diameter sphere of Bonded
Superdense armor material. Each has a volume of 0.0000005 m^3 and mass of
0.0000075 tons.

The .1 m^3 RAAM page module can carry up to:
Number: 153,438 projectiles			
  Mass: 1.19 tons
  Cost: 0.033 MCr

The 1 m^3 RAAM page module can carry up to:
Number: 1,814,953 projectiles			
  Mass: 13.75 tons
  Cost: 0.39 MCr

The 10 m^3 RAAM page module can carry up to:
Number: 19,072,352 projectiles			
  Mass: 143.75 tons
  Cost: 4 MCr

Data for the damage/pen at common accelerations:
Flight   |
Time     |Acceleration of Carrier/Missile
Minutes  |6   12   18   24   30   36
- -------------------------------------
30       |24  32   39   44   49   53
60       |32  44   53   60   66   71
90       |39  53   63   71   79   85
120      |44  60   71   81   89   97
150      |49  66   79   89   98   107
180      |53  71   85   97   107  115
- -------------------------------------
Example: a 12g missile traveling for 30 minutes before Bigshot releasing,
does damage/pen of 32 to any targets hit.

As to how many hits well that is something that will have to be worked on
for each system ie CT/MT/TNE/T4.

My idea right know is one hit per 100tons of hull displacement for a normal
success and two hits for every 100tons of hull displacement for outstanding
success.
 



- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(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, 4 Jun 1997 22:51:54 +0000
From: Garry Ward <Garry.E.Ward@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: CORE: PE question

At 04:28 AM 6/4/97 +0000, you wrote:
><snip>
>From what I've seen so far, PE has a lot right with 
>it, but the biggest thing wrong with it is organization.
>Nearly every sequence has a table, but since all the
>tables were moved to the back of the book there
>is a tedious need to flip back and forth (ESPECIALLY
>since most of the table roll MODIFIERS are in the TEXT
>section, rather than grouped with the table itself).
>The problem grows exponentially as the number of worlds 
>increases, and a GM might be keeping track of a subsector
>or two's worth of worlds.  Without electronic assistance
>it can be quite time consuming (perhaps a little *TOO*
>time consuming, wink wink, nudge nudge, get my drift?).
>
>How 'bout it?
>
>JB
>
>

Looks like one I will have to get; I have been scratching on the Traveller
equivalent of VGA Planets, but not making a whole lot of headway trying to
quantify some aspects of strategic processes go on behind the scences.

This may cure the mental blockade.

Garry  

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

Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 23:17:07 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Is Cleon scared?

It may be heresy but...

What if the Old Earth Union is at TL13 at Year 0? Would that explain why
the Imperium stopped expansion towards Terra, and didn't integrate until
the 500s (IIRC)? They waited until they reached a similar TL? And it fits
with the ongoing progress discussion.

Dom

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"Feel the guilt / like shackles round your feet / like a halo in reverse"
                     Depeche Mode "Violator"

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 16:27:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: The high-tech offenders

Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk> wrote:

>>Why?  How about if the Imperium finds such a world around year 4.  OK,
>>well you now have a several sector wide Imperium meeting *1* world (with
>>maybe a few lower tech colonies).  The higher tech world joins the
>>Imperium, no the other way around.

>You do realize, don't you, that it would take about 100 planets like Sylea
>to _match_ the might of one population B, TL 14 planet? (Population B is 
>10 times population A and TL 14 ships outmatch TL 12 ships about 10:1
>(Admittedly, this dosen't factor in the difference that Fusion+ would 
>make)).

True, that's why I think that TL 14 should be reduced to TL 13, and also I
agree with the majority of folks here that Pop B worlds should be changed
to pop A.  Pop A/9 is 90 billion inhabitants, I can see that in one
system, but Pop B/9 is 900 billion people.  I don't like this, and it also
greatly conflicts with the data for 1100.  Eliminate Pop B and things look
a lot better. 


- -John Snead jsnead@netcom.com

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 18:16:14 +0000
From: "Tim Reynolds" <tim@premier1.premier.net>
Subject: Re: Is Cleon scared?

> Date:          Tue, 3 Jun 1997 23:17:07 +0100
> To:            traveller@MPGN.COM
> From:          SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
> Subject:       Is Cleon scared?
> Reply-to:      traveller@MPGN.COM

> It may be heresy but...
> 
> What if the Old Earth Union is at TL13 at Year 0? Would that explain why
> the Imperium stopped expansion towards Terra, and didn't integrate until
> the 500s (IIRC)? They waited until they reached a similar TL? And it fits
> with the ongoing progress discussion.
> 

I would have to say thats pretty interesting  idea Dom.  I was 
woundaring why the new Empire never went that far.  

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jun 97 21:11:00 PDT
From: Glenn Myers <gem188@ansyspo.ansys.com>
Subject: Marathon Infinity for $9.98

Hi all,

I found something that may be useful to you Mac users out there.

http://www.zones.com/macworld.htm#3

Follow the link and get the full version of Marathon Infinity for $9.98.
It comes with the new map editor and manual. When I ordered it I expected a 
freebee version, just the CD-ROM. This looks like the retail version to me.

Now, If I could just get the time to work up a scenario using the Leviathan 
deck plans all would be good.

Disclaimer: I am not an employee of PC-ZONE or Bungie, just a happy fan.

Happy, Happy, Carnage, Carnage!
_____________________________________________________
Glenn E. Myers
ANSYS Inc.                Email: glenn.myers@ansys.com
275 Technology Drive      Phone: (412) 514-2913
Canonsburg, PA 15317      Fax:   (412) 514-3118
_____________________________________________________




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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1404
***********************************

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
