Traveller-digest      Thursday, June 19 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1444



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re Combat Lethality
t41achar comments
Re: PE Starport / Infrastructure costs
Task system...
Re: Sector Maps:  Can't Grok PBG
Re: Skills and Attributes - A CT Hang up?
Gushing about the new UWP
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
Re: Hardware, firmware, software
Skill's from Stats - An idea under construction
Re: Task System Revision
Re: MT Task System
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
RE:Skills and Attributes - A CT Hang up?
Re: Task System Vote
Re: Hardware, firmware, software

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 20:29:40 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re Combat Lethality

In mail Joe Walsh wrote:

>[details of fun-sounding combat fest snipped for brevity]
>
>Out of curiosity, did anyone try firing on the unarmored parts of the
>PC's or NPC's bodies (you mentioned the first group of NPCs were wearing
>Flex, as were the PCs)?

Whoops! The defenders were wearing cloth  - blame it on the late night and
no proof reading.

No one tried firing at specific bodies but one player fired her snub SMG on
burst mode into the wooden door a defender was hiding behind!...

>I really, really like these rules, when coupled with the torso-covering
>armor that T4 offers.  Mabye I'm interpreting them liberally, but it
>works for me. :)
>
>Did your group try it?  If so, how did it work out for them?

The groups actions were tempered by previous experiences of combat with
non-military spec weapons. Two of them have been hospitalised as a result
of brief gunfights (the don't usually wear armour on ship etc.). As a
result, the gun fights were cat and mouse around the stairwell, except for
the running away bits. The first fatality resulted from a guard running
down stairs, being surprised and walking into a gauss rifle autofire burst.
The second was the HEAP through the door. (I *love* the explosive rules!).
The third combined a grenade and a stun baton! (*)

I really like the T4 combat system. It is quick, easy and lethal. I've
played CT/MT and T4, and test run TNE (before abandoning it for MT). T4 is
the best version by far.

No doubt my players will try the aimed fire/pinpoint fire type rules!

(*) ref's decision as the stun baton dropped all three stats below zero.

The armour seemed to work like this -

None - Hospitalised/kill
Cloth - Hospitalised, maybe ride out low rolling attacks
Flex - Ride out most hand weapons (note that I assume a knockdown if
players are hit and the
armour absorbs it.
Combat/Battledress - "Run away. Run Away"

Dom

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"You may not recall the moment you asked me, but your
invitation was clear. You'll pretend you never met me,
but it's far too late now I'm here." Hogarth/Helmer

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 97 21:30 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: t41achar comments

T4.1 chargen comments

1. Doc needs spell-checking.

2. Nice to see Decorations back. Seems odd that you can be injured *or* get 
a medal, but not both - ie you get a medal for running away from danger! 
Also, they're too common (a fault in CT and MT, too)- a 1/36 chance per term 
of getting an SEH? In other words, every term 1 person in your platoon will 
get an SEH (not to mention 2 getting MCGs and 3 others getting MCUFs). 
Suggestion: military characters roll 2d each term for decorations (+1 if 
wounded that term). Award given on 11+. 1-3=MCUF, 4-5=MCG, 6=SEH. SEH grants 
+1 Soc (bravery is highly regarded in the Imperium). WB or MCUF grants +1 on 
commission/promotion roll that term, MCG grants +2, SEH grants +3.

3. TL Group table is broken - MidTech worlds can have starports A-C but 
HiTech worlds can have A-D. Suggestion: Drop Starports from that table. 
Change starport table to:

   Lo Mid Hi VHi
1   E  D  D  C
2   D  D  C  C
3   D  C  C  B
4   C  C  B  B
5   C  B  B  A
6   B  B  A  A

4. What's that table at the bottom of p3?

5. Not completely happy with new EDU rules. Suggestions: roll 1D6 for EDU, 
+0 for VLoTech, +1 for LoTech, +2 for MidTech, +3 for HiTech, +4 for 
VHiTech, +5 UHiTech. For schools, where it states "EDU increased to n", add 
"or +1, whichever is higher." 

6. Not sure about Latin honours (sorry, *honors*...) degree suffixes - would 
prefer just "(honors)."

7. Why are Computer degrees BAs? Mine's a BSc.

8. Prerequisites for university are too easy - increase EDU to 8+ (ED8 Cert 
defines 6- as a "deficient education", yet it's good enough to get into 
Uni?).

9. Birthdate Determination - complete waste of space - just pick a day 
between 1 and 365.

10. Cold sleep weeks: nice idea. Two changes: first, Navy should spend more 
time (remember the Frozen Watch?) - make same as Marines. Second, IMHO 
enlisted men should spend more time frozen than officers.

11. Character Card: race and sex are missing. Might be useful to include the 
genetic data from PE?

12. Nobles. How much income does an Official Noble receive? How much land is 
granted by the m/o benefit? Include the section from TNE on addressing 
Nobles.

13. Marines. E4 should be Corporal, not L/Cpl.

14. Navy. Commander rank missing from between O4 and O5.






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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:29:27 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: PE Starport / Infrastructure costs

I'm often fascinated at the way people see different messages in the same  
book.

> Yes, but as stated in the rules Resources in NOT a measure of the worlds
> ability to exploit its resources but the amount/purity of resources that
> are there. It is your infrastructure and TL that determine what amounts
> that you are able to dig up.

My reading of the Resources entry on page 35 and the side bar on p 42, leads 
me to different conclusions than Anders.  A TL 12 world can retrieve deeper 
oil reserves than a TL 4 one, as you note and as the rules allow, but that 
oil is a bigger "resource" for an industrialised world - more of the oil is 
used to create "high value" products.  A rough parallel would be the trade in 
crude oil compared with refineries near the oil fields and shipping (higher 
value) gasoline around.  I'm sure you can argue that refineries are 
"infrastructure", but I see the world differently.

Another example: a TL 12 world can grow more crops on a given bit of land 
with its geneered seeds, but an industrial world can build the huge combine 
harvesters that allow millions of hectares to be harvested more efficiently.

I find no problem accepting (and trying to justify to others) a +2 Re mod for 
Industrial worlds.  Similarly, if the designers had chosen to have the 
industrial mod as a +2 to the effective TL for exploiting resource, I would 
accept that as well.  

If we view PE as an economic model then I would say that at least the 
following would effect the GWP: Industrialisation, infrastructure, TL, POP.
How these effects can most accurately model the "real world" is open to 
considerable debate, but I would always include industrialisation as a 
factor.


Simon

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:10:06 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Task system...

I recently (last night) posted a note that expressed my concerns on the T4
task system. This arrived sometime after Marc's post, but before I read
Marc's post in the Digest (Serendipity!). I would just like to expand on
the comments, briefly.

I decided about nine months ago to start gaming seriously again. Out came
MT, as although I bought a lot of TNE stuff in support of GDW, I much
prefered the older setting and the simpler rules.

Then I heard about T4 and bought a copy. I tried the new rules in the first
adventure and after the session changed task difficulties to 2D, 3D, 4D etc
in a straight progression to make tasks harder. This worked for me, but not
that well.

Marc posted his new system, so I adopted it as a trial. This seemed much
better until I ran a combat style session last night. This fell apart as I
felt a highly skilled PC was heavily penalised by having a low attribute.

I look again at KBv2 and reject my original thinking of 'I can't be
bothered with the multiplication'. I feel a need (based on CTand MT) to
have a skill dominated system, with professional levels equal to skill-3.

I really like the MT task system, especially having re-read Joe Fugates'
explainations of why it was designed as it was. However, the T4/KBv2 style
CT feel is easier for new players (none of my players have played Traveller
before).

In response to Andy Lilly: Andy, I agree the game has changed and the T4
rules are easy to introduce new players with, *but* having tried both
versions T4/T4.1 I am very uneasy with them. Maybe I'm indoctrinated with
CT and MT but it seems unbalanced in use. (This isn't a flame - just a
personal gut feel).

Some points -
=============

1) The task system *can* be changed with impunity - so the screen may be
wrong, as will T4. But any scenarios that quote the difficulty code (eg
average) can be safely used, or back fitted. Give it a year or so and no
one will notice... they may even assume the screen has a typo! ;-)

2) Skills with numbers similar to CT/MT work for me, as I can use my old
back catalogue. Some ex-TNErs may disagree.

3) SF/SS don't work for me as written. And I'm agnostic about 1/2 D - keep
it or bin it.

4) I'm not necessarily advocating Ken's system, but it seems to be the best
I've tried for T4.

5) Finally, Marc, if you don't want to drop the T4.1 system why not put in
a sidebar in the rules describing KBv2 as an official 'skill' dominated
alternative that fits better with previous editions? Keeping everyone happy
so long as the task codes are the same...

Thanks you for the work so far - T4.1 is something I am looking for.

Dom

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"You may not recall the moment you asked me, but your
invitation was clear. You'll pretend you never met me,
but it's far too late now I'm here." Hogarth/Helmer

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 13:40:53 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Sector Maps:  Can't Grok PBG

On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 clay@Incite.com wrote:

> I'm looking at the sector maps in M0/FS and I can't quite grok what the
> PBG column is on the data sheets.
> 
> I'm *guessing* that it's
> 
> 	P	# of Planetary Belts
> 	B	# of Asteroid Belts, and
> 	G	# of Gas Giants
> 

Close, P stands for Population Multiplier. The others are right, though.
The Pop multiplier give you a bit finer grain on the population of the
system, since all that the UWP gives you is an order of magnitude. A UWP
figure of 6 gives you millions of people, and a P value of 7 tells you
there are 7 million people there.

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 13:59:22 -0800
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Skills and Attributes - A CT Hang up?

>I feel that a lot of the arguments about stats biasing tasks too much is
>simply because the CT and MT task systems (which everyone with a long
>standing in Traveller seems to hark back to) placed the greatest emphasis on
>skills - i.e. it's a system that we're all familiar with.

Most definately.  The idea that a talented beginner could beat
out and mediocre hack with experience would not be considered
reasonable on a lot of other lists.

If you add in the fact that there was a big disupute over
stat vs skill and then a long silence in which Kenneth
was the only one agitating, you have the making for
an obvious bias.  I'm also on the GURPS list and I'll
say here what I said there.  You don't design systems
by apparent popular opinion.

My take is that the alternate task systems fix something I
don't see as broken (stats for skills), at least in the task
system, while leaving the one thing I don't like (variable
and large numbers of dice) intact (or worse off).  They
do this by introducing more math.
______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 13:54:18 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Gushing about the new UWP

I am quite pleased that the economic UWP has made it into the system.
While I am not convinced labor needed to be a number all its own,
resources, infrastructure, and culture are very, very handy, and not listed
anywhere else.

FWIW, I am finishing up a Python script that will generate such for the
empire as a whole.  I decided last night to break with published data, and
generate my own physical data, with the locations the same.  My logic was
that I found it a bit strange, though certainly not unreasonable, that the
average atmosphere was thin, rather than standard.  (I figured that if the
Ancients had spread humanity over so many worlds, the least they could do
is terraform them a bit.)

I am using a two pass system for this, which is really only appropriate at
the end of the long night, and if a computer is doing the scutwork.  All
worlds of pop 8, 9, and A will be placed first on congenial planets, then I
will have each spread some colonies out.  In addition, I am going to place
a few bizarre worlds here and there at random, though both colonies and
random worlds should likely be near a main.  I expect to have a roughly
similar distribution to that in the books, but with far fewer pop 6 or less
worlds that are not explicit colonies of some bigger world.

The UWP resources digit, combined with one for native life make it pretty
easy for a program to tell which worlds are congenial.

(I owe this fit of fiddling to Jeff Zeitlin and his alternative world
generation page.)

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, 19 Jun 1997 13:59:46 -0800
From: Richard Hough <rdhough@orca.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

>I understand you have strong feelings about the task system. But out of
>perhaps 300 people on this list, no one is championing the cause except you.

If you mean that no one else has strong feelings about the task system, I
believe you are wrong. I remember the great Task System thread about a
month ago, and estimate over a dozen house systems were posted. I posted
one myself. At least a few of the posters had "strong feelings about the
task system".

I and others have stated that the reason we felt compelled to propose
alternate task sytems was because of what we felt to be serious problems in
the existing task system. I can't speak for others, but I personally am not
one of those referees who is constantly fiddling with the rules. I am more
interested in role-playing and will change a rule only if I believe the
rule actually damages enjoyment of the game. I joined in the thread because
I feel the T4 task rules harm the game. I believe I gave specific examples
of what is wrong, but to avoid adding fuel to the flames if anyone wants
details please send me private email.

I have examined the new task rules included with the Referee's Screen, and
believe they have the same problem as the existing rules. Surely the fact
that there are so many alternate task rules proposed is evidence that there
is dissatisfaction with the current rules. For comparison, look at the
Psionics rules. They are at least as complex as the task rules, yet there
are comparitively few alternate Psionics postings, and those few are
usually designed to get a specific campaign effect. I believe this is
because most referees are satisfied with the Psionics rules, I know I am.
You are not doing a favor to the people who have supported the game for
years by passing this issue off as the whinings of a few malcontents, even
if there are some whiners among them.

During the time of the task system thread, I experimented with at least 6
different task systems, and actually used 4 in game sessions. Several
solved the problems in the T4 system but introduced other problems. After
this period of experimentation I finally decided to use KBv2.0. Not because
Kenneth whined the most, but because I felt his was the best system. It
solved the problems I saw in the existing system with the least changes to
the existing rules. It requires only two very localized changes to the
rules (different dice for difficulty and maintaining an "experience" stat);
it uses the task progression, terms, and DMs already published; and it is
easy to use with existing characters and adventures. No other proposal had
all these advantages. If you are going to revisit the task system for T4.1
I can think of no better system than KBv2.0.

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 97 16:10:27 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Hardware, firmware, software

On 06/19/97 at 05:03 PM,  John Wood <John@elvw.demon.co.uk> said:

>I was wondering what computers/operating systems people here use?  I've
>seen quite a few mentions of Macs and only a few Unix/Windows/Dos.

I run under OS/2, so I can run OS/2, DOS or Win3.1 programs.  

>If you *do* answer this, can we please be careful to avoid any OS wars.

Heaven forbid!  

Besides, we're already having a TS war in here. ;->

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 97 15:51:06 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Skill's from Stats - An idea under construction

On 06/19/97 at 12:18 PM,  "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net> said:



>That sounds like a perfectly good idea, and one I'll start using.
>>increase. <---Now the question is does he get a 1 point skill increase or
>a *3* point increase? ;->

>You are evil, you are. :)

Why, thank you! I'm touched. ;->

A logical extention of my original idea is...

How about we drop attributes/characteristics/stats entirely from normal
task *resolution* and just use skills?  The stats are used to produce
the skill during CharGen and Experience with something like the
following:



First through Nth Gain -- increase skill points (SP) by controlling
                          attribute, option:  require completion of a
                          skill increase task to determine if you
                          increase skill points, and perhaps by how
                          much.

Skill Level used in task resolution = SP/3,d

Record both SP and Skill Level on Character Sheet.

Experience increases skill points (SP), so it takes 3 experience
increases to raise a Skill Level.

Injury (from combat or otherwise) provides -DM's to Skill Levels based
on levels of injury..tbd.

Stats are used for "Stats only" and "Unskilled" Task Resolution

Example:

 Str 3
 Dex 10
 Int 7

 First Term:
   Brawling 1st
   Dance 1st 
   Streetwise 1st
                  Skill
            SP    Level
 ======================           
 Brawling    3      1
 Dance      10      3
 Streetwise  7      2
 
 Second Term
  Brawling 2nd
  Streetwise  2nd
  Fast Talk  1st
                  Skill
            SP    Level
 ======================           
 Brawling    6      2
 Dance      10      3
 Fast Talk   7      2
 Streetwise 14      4
 
 Third Term
  Brawling 3rd
  Dance  2nd
  Streetwise 3rd
                  Skill
            SP    Level
 ======================           
 Brawling    9      3
 Dance      20      6
 Fast Talk   7      2
 Streetwise 21      7
 
Well, I was afraid the numbers would go up too fast, but it looks like
they might go up too slowly.  Maybe the *first* (and only the first)
Gain should receive twice the Stat?  I like the concept behind this
though.

What do *you* think?

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:03:56 CDT
From: Don McKinney <dmckinne@csci.csc.com>
Subject: Re: Task System Revision

>  1. T4 is weighted too heavily against stats.  Skills have a minor part in a
> character's 
>  success at a task throw.  These should be equally weighted.

I'd rate this a "5 - least important", and I'd like to vote for the exact
opposite:

T4 is weighted too heavily against skills.  Stats have a minor part in a 
character's success at a task throw, and these should NOT be equally weighted.

1 - most important.

>  2. Spectacular Success and Spectacular Failure are hard to do at easy and
> average, and easier at harder levels.

2 - important, but not overwhelming

>  3.  It should be harder to roll SS the harder a task becomes.

3 - semi-important; if you keep this "proportional", it will happen via
the mechanics...

>  4.  Replace SS with SF in 3.

same vote - 3, semi-important...

>  5. I don't like the half-die. Get rid of it.

1 - most important.  Half dice get me laughed at in my gaming club, and
I run the Winter War Gaming Convention...

Marc - thanks for allowing the level of input from the gamers you are.


DonM.
- --
============================================================================
= 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: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 14:18:55 -0700
From: Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: MT Task System

Nick Munn wrote:

>The MT system is the best I have seen to date, bar none.
>
>Andy Lilly writes:
>
>> DISCUSSION:
>>
>> I feel that a lot of the arguments about stats biasing tasks too much is
>> simply because the CT and MT task systems (which everyone with a long
>> standing in Traveller seems to hark back to) placed the greatest emphasis on
>> skills - i.e. it's a system that we're all familiar with.


I had promised myself I wouldn't convolute this issue any further, but I
feel a burning need to make one point about the MT task system.

I have very fond memories of using the MT task system. I got to the point
where I was so comfortable with it as a referee that I could easily and
accurately bandy about tasks for the players to attempt.

However...

One of the problems with the MT task system was that if you were good
enough, you could actually wound a guy in assault battledress with an ACR
or Gauss rifle, if I recall correctly. This simply should not be possible.
The skills must weigh into the equation, but the mechanics must make
certain that physical impossibilities are accounted for.

Best,

Chris Griffen

===================================================
Keeper of the Flame. Traveller player since 1980.

http://www.cris.com/~Cgriffen/traveller/deneb.shtml



- --------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Griffen                      Phone: (408) 527-7189
Cisco Systems, Inc.                      Fax:   (408) 527-0452
NMBU Technical Publications              cgriffen@cisco.com

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 97 22:32:07 +0100
From: David Scott <Snail@dircon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

>> From: CardSharks@aol.com
>> I understand you have strong feelings about the task system. But out of
>> perhaps 300 people on this list, no one is championing the cause except
>you.
>> Assume half don't care about tasks anyway....

>Here's some more.  While I believe Kenneth's system is *very* good, I do
>not like it solely on the basis that I don't like rolling handfuls of dice
>while playing Traveller (its OK with Star Wars though).  Traveller is and
>always will be, in my mind, a 2d6 system.

Agreed, 2D6 system, more emphasis on skills over stats. I personally have 
always used and still do use the original task system as published in the 
early Travellers digest. Megatraveller got it right. TNE changed it to 
the house system - stupid move. T4 screwed it up. T4.1 hopefully back to 
2D6.

David

Travelling since 1977 and still going...

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 97 16:21:11 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: RE:Skills and Attributes - A CT Hang up?

On 06/16/97 at 07:00 PM,  "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com> said:

Tim Reynolds said...
>> True again.  I have a minor case of CP so my Dex at most is a two ; ) as
>> well as strength, and from personal experince I know I would love to be a
>> guitar player and have read many books and can even play a little but no
>> matter how much I read I ll never be a rocket star.  SO attributes do mean
>> alot. 

>Yes they do, but skills matter too.  This is why I advocate that  skills =
>attribute in contribution to the target number.

What do you think about the Skill from Stats idea I posted today? A low stat would increase skills slowly, average stat would increase skills faster, and high stats would increase skill rapidly. Stats aren't lowered, so PC's don't become easier to kill. Skill gains are multipliers, so they are more heavily weighted than through addition. Finally, it looks like it might work best with a return to some sort of 2 or 3 dice system. 

Take a look and tell me what you both think.

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

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

Date: 19 Jun 1997 21:20:32 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Re: Task System Vote

I like the idea of skills counting for more than attributes, but I've decided
(for simplicity) to use my own (very simple) modification of T4 - assuming
that I play T4 rather than Milieu 0 with TNE or Babylon Project rules.  (Not
trying to devalue my vote here - just pointing out that for me Traveller is a
background more than a ruleset.)

My system is to divide the attribute by the number of tasks that the
character is attempting.  Thus, if you are driving and talking at the same
time your Dexterity is divided by two.  Driving, talking on your cell phone,
drinking coffee and fishing in your briefcase (like the ^$^%#^$ who nearly
ran me off the 404 yesterday) gets Dex divided by 4.

Because is most situations gamers are doing two things (at least, my group is
always talking if nothing else!), I rule that the attribute is divided by two
unless that character is alone and _undisturbed_, or unless the player makes
a point of role-playing a touchy "leave me alone" attitude.  Thus, if the
ship's engineer gets grumpy when under pressure, there's a reason.  The thief
who says she's concentrating onpicking the lock probably _won't_ hear the
security patrol, either! :-)

This does let "whizkids" do wonders, but only if they are not distracted. 
This matches what I've observed at school, where I deal with kids of all
mental levels but usually low skill levels.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 14:12:59 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Hardware, firmware, software

At 05:03 PM 6/19/97 +0100, you wrote:
>[If this has been discussed before, can some just tell me the results?
> Thanks.]
>
>I was wondering what computers/operating systems people here use?  I've
>seen quite a few mentions of Macs and only a few Unix/Windows/Dos.

I use Macs when I can, Unix when I must, and Dos/Windows when I go to work.
 As a result, good traveller software for me is preferably Mac.

>My second question is more Traveller-related.  What would you want
>Pocket Empires software to do?  This is a deliberately vague question to
>avoid biasing the response.

The stuff I am writing is a sim-empire dealy that will take the big data
file, add the economic factors, and then let you iterate for a year or two
using reasonable assumptions for behavior.

Since a real program to do the evolution, traderoute building, and so on,
could be a lot smarter, some planning smarts would be nice, and something
that lets me see what my empire is doing would also be good.

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

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1444
***********************************
