Traveller-digest      Wednesday, June 25 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1477



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Coreward Maelstrom
In defence of MegaTraveller
Re: Task System Blues
Re: Task System: Compromise Solution
Re: Task System Blues
Re: Why the MT system is not a good choice
Re: Task System, Game Design, etc.
Re:Minimum Tech Level For...
Re: Task System, Game Design, etc.
Re: Character Generation Pages in WFW95
Re: Deckplan Question?
Re: Eris Task System Suggestion
High EDU/INTs (was Re: Character Generation Pages in WFW95)
Re: Character Generation Pages in WFW95
Re: Characteristic vs. Skill claim
Re: Characteristic vs. Skill claim
Re: Deckplan Question?

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:45:14 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Coreward Maelstrom

At 11:46 AM 6/25/97 +0100, you wrote:
>James:
><<Anyone care to wager how much of a threat they would be to the Domain
>of Deneb *if* the Vargr could all get along together (for longer than
>a few months or so, anyways)?  I'm considering running a campaign
>taking place around 1125 where just such a thing might be possible (I
>haven't figured out exactly how, yet).>>
>
>Hmmm... If you want a historical parallel to inspire you, then I suggest
>you read up on the origins and early history of Islam. Vagr mojaheddeen
>could be just what the doctor ordered. Of course, if you follow the
>historical model closely, then you'll end up with a radically different
>universe from canon; but it could be fun.

This is something I've been considering for an extended M:0 campaign I'm
writing (and hope to publish).  A Vargr with an extremely high Charisma and
delusions of Godhood proclaims a jihad against the new Imperium.  He
inspires fervent loyalty in his subordinates, who in turn keep the lower
ranks in line.

The image of thousands of TL9-11 Vargr raiders breaking out along the
Vland/Lishun frontier just appeals to me...
- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry         dberry@hooked.net   |
| Gearhead & Planetologist, Traveller since 1977 |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|************************************************|
|    "Traveller assumes a remote centralized     |
|   government (referred to in this volume as    |
|    the Imperium)...                            |
|       -Introduction, Book 4: Mercenary (1978)  |
+------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 13:06:00 -0400
From: Andy Brick <exeus@compuserve.com>
Subject: In defence of MegaTraveller

Hi All,

Having seen Kenneth's attack on MT, I was compelled to respond. Here goes=
=2E

> In MT, both characters have the SAME chance to succeed.  Because of =

> MT's stat division, both will have a target number of 8+.  Both have =

> a 41.67% chance of success.

That's because in MT, the importance of statistics is much less than the
importance of skills in resolving a task. Edu is much more generic than
Medic - it's the total sum of a person's Education, and includes many, ma=
ny
things that are not entirely relevant to the task at hand. The Doctor mig=
ht
have ( to use the British system for a minute ) an A-Level in History. Th=
at
contributes to his Edu score, but is completely irrevelant to the Medical=

task.

My understanding is that the stat division in MT reflected that
characteristics
were generic in this fashion. Ok, wait a minute, what about the physical
stats ?
Surely they are not generic ? Think again. Consider that using Dex for a
Surgery
task involves manual dexterity. Using Dex as a modifier on acrobatics is
different
entirely - I know of dancers who would never make good surgeons !!!

> The guy's got a 8.33% chance of rolling regular success, and a =

> whopping 83.33% chance of rolling SS.

So ? This is for an Average task, remember. I would expect a high
proportion of results
to be better than regular success with a skill level of 3 on an average
task. You are
confusing/equating the T4 skill level of 3 with the MT skill level of 3
here - they aren't
the same. T4 characters often get high skill levels during character
generation, whereas
MT ones do not. The result is that Skill Level 3 in MT is worth more than=

the same in
T4 ; This means that the guy is _very_ skilled in MT and should perform
well in average
conditions. This is why I suggested capping skill levels at 5 if the MT
system was used in
T4.1

> That's bass-ackwards.

No, it just means he's good at his job.

> Our doctor, who is much more skilled than the NPC, has a 8.33% chance =

> of pulling off regular success.
> On the other hand, our NPC character, who needs a higher number to =

> pull off regular success, has a 13.8% chance of rolling regular =

> success.

You are missing the point ! The doctor has a HIGHER chance of spectacular=

success,
and a better chance of success OVERALL. All that happens here is he has a=

lower
chance of performing in a mediocre fashion, whereas the NPC is far more
likely to
do so 'cos he ain't so good. That does not seem wrong to me at all.

> Now, we have the problem of the lesser skilled having a better chance =

> of doing something than a higher leveled character.

No, we have the "problem" of a lesser skilled character performing in a
mediocre
fashion more often than a highly skilled character. Er ... I don't think
that's
a problem at all, is it ?

> The only criticism I see about it is that it requires too many dice and=

that =

> it is more complex than T4.

Ah, but you have revealed another problem in your comments. For example, =
we
can =

now see that with KBv2.0, everyone is some kind of weird clone. They all
have =

similar chances of performing tasks in a mediocre fashion REGARDLESS of
skill level. =


> First off, we are not talking about that many more dice--1 or 2 at =

> the most over T4.

And many more over MT, which is fixed at 2. I for one don't like rolling =
7
dice ...

> Second, the system is not complicated at all.  I'd posit that it is =

> simpler than MT, and I can express it in one equation:

Core MT can be written in one equation too. It's called the Universal Tas=
k
Profile ( UTP ).
The sequence for tasks is easy at 3-7-11-15-19 etc. Where's the complexit=
y
?

> Simple addition to find a target number...no half dice...good chances =

> of success...easy implementation with T4.

All true with MT as well, with the addition that MT has been around for a=

decade and is well
tried and tested. Plus, it is more flexible and allows for such things as=

the time it took to
perform a task, mishaps ... I could go on.

> It's everything that you are asking for.  It does the job, and it does =
it
well.

Ok. Tell me how to work out how badly I failed in a manner like the MT
mishap table. Tell me =

how long the task took. Tell me what bonus I get for being cautious. Tell=

me how I roll a =

diagnostic ( i.e. uncertain task ) where the character suspects but does
not absolutely =

know the outcome. Tell me what happens when I want to retry a task. =


I suspect that you can, but not without extending your system a bit. Why
reinvent the wheel ?

> I'm not saying that because I'm pushing my system.  =


Well, you are the principle advocate of it ...

> Give it a shot in just one of your games.  It will make a believer out =
of
you too.

Well, I did, no one liked it. I am therefore not a "believer".

Andy Brick
exeus@compuserve.com

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 12:26:25 +0000
From: twolf@unix.tfs.net
Subject: Re: Task System Blues

> Just some random thoughts on the task system/skill value/attribute
> debate.
> 
> First off, let me stand up and be counted amongst those who are in
> favor of Marc's tweaked task system for T4.1.  
> 
Stu,

Thanks for forwarding this to me.

I vote for T4.1.

JD
Twolf

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 18:14:14 +0100
From: John Wood <John@elvw.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Task System: Compromise Solution

David P. Summers <summers@alum.mit.edu> writes,
> If you have most of the people coming out of the stat generation (ie
> you acount for the fact that stats are non-linear, and so don't have
> as big an effective range) with numbers that vary just as much as
> skill (ie skills are, say 0-6 and most of the characters have stats in
> the 4-11 range.) then skills and stat _are_ equally weighted.
                             ^
What I would dispute here is the plural "skills".  I would say that,
given equal ranges, *a* skill and *a* stat are balanced - but there are
far more skills than stats, so overall a stat has far greater weight.
The system very strongly encourages generalists.

[GURPS suffers from the same problem in some circumstances, but this is
 normally minimised by the high cost of stats.  I know *you* know this,
 David, but I thought it worth mentioning here anyway.]

> The only reason Dex 7 and skill 4 vs Dex 11 and skill 1 is seen as a
> problem is the desire to see skill weighted more heavily than stats.

I would say it is a desire to see skills weighted more heavily in their
limited area of effect to counter the broad effectiveness of stats.
This makes specialists more desirable characters.

> But that is matter of personal opinion.

Agreed.

In another thread, you wrote:
> I agree that a stat increase should be harder to get than a skill
> increase (it is a more fundamental change in the character).

I agree too.  This is, of course, the GURPS approach.

> But that calls for tweaing the character generation system.
> Not overhaulling the task system (which I would do, but that's just
> because I don't like the variable dice scheme...)

I think in an ideal world, this would be my preferred method of dealing
with the situation.  Although I would (for preference) emphasise skills
a little more anyway, I wouldn't be unhappy if that didn't happen under
these circumstances.  However, changing the task system is more limited
in scope and appears to be happening anyway; Changing chargen in such a
way opens up a much bigger can of worms...

Sorry if these are old arguments - I've skipped a bit to catch up.
 
John G. Wood  |  john@elvw.demon.co.uk  |  Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 18:57:08 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Task System Blues

> Hey i am not proposing to use the MT system unchanged...
> I just want to see a similar task system, maybe one where the 
> attributes are divided by three. I just want to roll two dice however 
> and i wantr to have task difficulty determined by a target number, 
> not by rolling more and more dice!

You design it, and I'll tear it apart to see if it is a good system.

Or, we can go with something that is not broken...like KBv2.0.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 18:57:09 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Why the MT system is not a good choice

> The reason why so many of us talk fondly of MT Task system is that we
> really mean the MT days with excellent quality DGP products and good
> quality GDW products.

You list some very good reasons why the MT task system is not a good 
choice for T4, but I think you've touched on why so many people are 
looking towards it now.

Many just remember fondly the days of MegaTraveller.  The task system 
was simple, and it seemed to work.

If you look at the facts, though, the MT system has just as many 
problems as T4.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 18:57:07 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Task System, Game Design, etc.

Marc Miller wrote:

> Meanwhile, I had a reasoned (voice) discussion with Kenneth Bearden about
> tasks, and it helped a lot. For one thing, he expressed the opinion that T41
> (being a complete rewrite) (correct me if I misstate you Kenneth) deals with
> a wider range of skill levels than Classic Traveller, making at least some of
> the discussion moot.

Yes, I did agree with you that if we put skills on a 1-15 scale, the 
rest of the discussion would be moot.

To me, the real problem is the skill vs stats issue.

But, I did not agree that changing the value of skills that radically 
is the best answer.  It seems to be that T4 will become a new animal 
at that point more akin to TNE than to T4.

I personally like CT's and MT's influcence on T4.  I like being able 
to use my old supplements almost completely interchangeably.

It seems to me that it will be easier to tweak the task system (with 
a system like KBv2.0) and leave the rest of the game alone rather 
than having to create an entirely new task system and go through the 
whole game re-writing all of the CT era rules that are included in 
T4.

I think we should work within the confines of what Traveller has 
given us--that is stats that range from 1-15 and skills that range 
from 1-6 or so.

KBv2.0 is the simplist fix.  I'm keeping my mind open for other 
systems and fixes, but I keep coming back to the one I designed.

I spent months tackling the problems presented in T4.  I did my 
homework, and I did a good job on the system.

KBv2.0 was specifically designed to make the changes in T4 with a 
minimal amount of changes--keeping the rest of the game as is.

It is still the best choice we have.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 12:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com>
Subject: Re:Minimum Tech Level For...

Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU> wrote:

<snip>

>By the way, there is no reason parts could not be interchangable.
>Interchangability is a "soft" technology, and depends on a mindset that
>recognizes the need for building in tolerances between moving parts and
>using standard gauges.  For example, the parts for weapons the Afgani
>gunsmiths make fit weapons made in factories.  Thus, if one assumes a
>society where airships are reasonably common and the need to fix them far
>from home arrises, the use of standard designs and interchangable parts
>is a real possibility.  More likely, though, is that the local blacksmith
>would just copy the broken part and send you on your way.

Yep, one of the most amazing things I ever saw was on a Discovery Channel
show about railroads in Africa.  A train needed a new hex bolt, so it
stopped in a village, and the local blacksmith, using hand-made tools and
an open forge with a goat-skin bellows (ie TL 1 equipment) made the new
hex bolt in under 5 minutes.  From what I've read, a lot of the less
industrial parts of the 3rd world run this way.  I'd imagine lots of the
lower TL worlds in the Imperium would run this way too. 

Similar thoughts occurred when I watched a show with a TL 1 sailboat sail
between Africa and India, with a radio and GPS system on board.  Low tech
worlds in the Imperium could be fun places indeed. 


- -John Snead jsnead@netcom.com

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:26:16 -0400
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: Task System, Game Design, etc.

In a message dated 97-06-24 22:06:44 EDT, Marc Miller writes:

>>>
Thank you for your email. What I have to trust is that after I come to a
decision, I will be able to withstand the flames.

Marc Miller
<<<

Marc,

As a long time fan, I am pleased that you:
 1) are even on this list
 2) Listen to what people have to say
 3) Respond with ideas and suggestions

After the past few days (weeks?, months?) of the great task debate of 97
I will be happy to accept any system you decide upon. (I will adapt it
to my play style as I have done will every other traveller system) :)

Thank you for your time, and efforts. I recognize that this not an easy
task to do, what with 300 very opinionated fans watching your every
move. Good luck and please know that many out here are thankful for your
attention. I hope whatever you end up with will end this debate for once
and all. I will withhold my flamethrower for other targets.  ;->


Bob Sanders

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 15:19:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: Character Generation Pages in WFW95

In a message dated 97-06-25 15:07:08 EDT, you write:

<< college becomes attractive only to the low-Edu, which 
 seems perverse!  I don't believe an Edu 6 student can become Edu 8 on 
 a course which an Edu 8 person doesn't gain a point or two of Edu (in 
 or out of the classroom).
  >>
Except that there are skills which also come with the college education. The
skills are valuable in themselves.

Marc

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 15:29:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: Deckplan Question?

In a message dated 97-06-25 05:07:54 EDT, you write:

<< 
 Haven't a clue where they got the 13.5 m^3 number, but by the definition,
 14 is the correct number, and the number SHALL NOT be 13.5 UNLESS thou
 proceedest on to 14. 15 is right out! 
 
  >>


1. Why are there short tons (2,000 pounds) and tons (2200 pounds). Answer:
because the 2200 pound measure works better as an expression of 2,000
kilograms. We see the same effect with statute miles and nautical miles.

2. The grid squares on deck plans are 1.5 meters on a side. A cube 1.5 meters
on a side is 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 3.375. Four such cubes = 13.5 cubic meters.
Assuming a deck height of 3 meters, that means that two squares stacked with
cubes to a height of 2 equals 13.5 meters or one ton.

3. I think the measure has to be 13.5 cubic meters.

Marc Miller
 

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 15:46:12 -0400
From: hdhale@siscom.net (Harold Hale)
Subject: Re: Eris Task System Suggestion

Kenneth Bearden writes:

>>       Hrm? I always felt that skills in TNE had more-or-less the same value as
>> in CT/MT ... And I've been keeping the flame for near two decades ...
>
>No.  TNE skill levels are worth about half of a CT/MT skill level.  
>That is, a CT/MT level 2 would convert to a TNE level 4--generally.
>
>You can infer this from the rules and game mechanics, but you can 
>also look in the back of Survival Margin where it talks about 
>converting CT/MT characters to TNE.

   The conversion process tended to make some characters into
superheroes in TNE who were just good characters in CT/MT.  There are a
few paragraphs at the end of the conversion process that talk about that
subject, and go on to state that it is up to the referee (in
consultation with the player) to take adjustments as required.  One
wonders if Dave wasn't rewarding people for converting to TNE...

   Starting from *scratch* with character generation (and having
creating characters in all the various systems), I'd say that a
character with Pilot-7 in original classic Traveller (pre-High Guard) is
someone who makes Chuck Yeager look like a novice.  On the otherhand, a
High Guard/MT Pilot-7 would be on a par with Chuck, while a TNE Pilot-7
would be just your run-of-the-mill member of an elite fighter squadron
(Blue Angels, Thunderbirds, etc.).  TNE skill levels count for slightly
less than CT/MT, but I would argue the ratio isn't 2:1, it's more like
5:3 or 4:3.

Regards,

Harold

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:40:35 -0500
From: clay@Incite.com
Subject: High EDU/INTs (was Re: Character Generation Pages in WFW95)

[CardShark@aol.com comments about INT and EDU stat meanings.]

I don't know what other people have experienced, but we just generated 5
characters for a new PE campaign and the lowest EDU any of them had was
D.  Looking over the rules, we concluded that EDU bonuses were just too
damn easy to come by.  We had two characters maxed out at EDU F, and
still getting 4 or 5 gimmes of EDU from skill rolls.

As a result, we decided on a simple patch:

If a character washes out of a higher education path, he or she only
gains +1 EDU, regardless of how many years spent in the path.  To gain
the full EDU bonus, the character must persevere.

- ---
Onegai shimasu.

Clay Luther
clay@incite.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	owner-traveller-digest@MPGN.COM
> [SMTP:owner-traveller-digest@MPGN.COM]
> Sent:	Tuesday, June 24, 1997 7:41 PM
> To:	traveller-digest@lists.MPGN.COM
> Subject:	Traveller-digest V1997 #1471
> 
> 
> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 19:03:48 -0400 (EDT)
> From: CardSharks@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Character Generation Pages in WFW95
> 
> In a message dated 97-06-23 20:16:15 EDT, you write:
> 
> << 
>  5.  On page 2 under MENTAL CHARACTERISTC EQUIVALENTS, only 1 point
>  separates BS from MS and MS from Ph.D.  I think they're too close.
>  Proportionately, it takes far more work to get a Ph.D. then an MS.
>  >>
> 
> I'm looking at severely crunching down what levels of Edu mean...
> Attached
> text from the Chargen tables.
> 
> 
> 
> MENTAL CHARACTERISTIC EQUIVALENTS
> Value	Int	Edu
> 0	Braindead	Illiterate
> 1		
> 2		Basic Reading
> 3	Impaired	Grade School
> 4		Ed Certificate
> 5	Below Average	High School
> 6	Average	Associate
> 7	Average	Bachelors
> 8	Average	Masters
> 9	Above Average	
> A	Superior	Doctorate
> B	Very Superior	
> C	Gifted	
> D	Very Gifted	
> E	Genius	
> F
> 
> GRADUATE SCHOOL
> 	Graduate School is the first step in pursuing an advanced
> education. 
> Prerequisite: BA, BS, or BFA.
> 	Admission:	 7 -; DM +1 if Int 9+
> 	Perseverance:	 7 -; DM +1 if Int A+
> 	Honors:	 4 -; DM +1 if Int B+
> Academic Skills	Honors Benefits
> 	1	Jack of all Trades		Degree carries
> 	2	Academic	the suffix honors
> 	3	Instruction	
> 	4	Technical	
> 	5	Performance		Receive +1 Edu.
> 	6	Computer	
> 	Roll once per year or choose from Major.
> 
> 	Declared Major: Indicate one skill within Physical Science,
> Social Science,
> or Performance as Major.
> 	Education Increase: Edu increased to 8.
> 	Academic Degree: Social Sciences: MA; Physical Sciences: MS;
> Performance:
> MFA. Degree is not granted unless Major level is 6+ (9+ for Ph.D).
> 

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:17:29 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Character Generation Pages in WFW95

Scott Ellsworth wrote:

> This brings up another idea:  perhaps should EDU start out low, like 1D6+1,
> and then get raised according to chargen and background skills, with EDU
> being a possible background skill.  One of my players brought this point up
> - regardless of background, it is pretty likely that a Sylean will have a
> higher EDU than any person from a TL9 or less culture.  The resources it
> costs to give  every Sylean the equivalent of a modern day PhD in
> information is likely too trivial to notice - witness the section on
> poverty - they all have wallscreens, and have been using databases to look
> stuff up for a very long time.

Yes, but, that assumes two things about the high tech society:

1. The populace actually use the wallscreens for educational purposes,
and don't spend all their time watching the latest holovid soap opera,
or playing Duke Norris Nukem' in 3D. Brain candy does not an EDU
increase make.

2. Is being able to look info up on huge databases condusive to
encouraging EDU increases? The arguement could be made that High Tech
people become dependent upon their KnowledgeBases, and don't bother
actually absorbing factual content.

I guess a lot depends on the definition of EDU, but it seems to me that
there are factors in a high tech society that might impede the advance
of EDU.

As an aside, in TNE, higher tech citizens received an EDU bonus during
character generation...

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:02:28 -0800
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Characteristic vs. Skill claim

Tue, 24 Jun 1997 22:05:04 -0600, "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
>>>First of all, characteristics can range from 1 to 15.

>>The fact is that if 2.8% of the characters start with
>>stat of 2 and 100% of them start with a skill of 0.

>	Most of them start with NO skill, which isn't the same as skill-0.

Well, since raising it one level gets them skill-1, it is for
purposes of figuring out the base you are buying up from.
______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:02:28 -0800
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Characteristic vs. Skill claim

Tue, 24 Jun 1997 22:05:04 -0600, "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
>>>First of all, characteristics can range from 1 to 15.

>>The fact is that if 2.8% of the characters start with
>>stat of 2 and 100% of them start with a skill of 0.

>	Most of them start with NO skill, which isn't the same as skill-0.

Well, since raising it one level gets them skill-1, it is for
purposes of figuring out the base you are buying up from.
______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:06:00 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Deckplan Question?

On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 CardSharks@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 97-06-25 05:07:54 EDT, you write:
> 
> << 
>  Haven't a clue where they got the 13.5 m^3 number, but by the definition,
>  14 is the correct number, and the number SHALL NOT be 13.5 UNLESS thou
>  proceedest on to 14. 15 is right out! 
>  
>   >>
> 
> 
> 1. Why are there short tons (2,000 pounds) and tons (2200 pounds). Answer:
> because the 2200 pound measure works better as an expression of 2,000
> kilograms. We see the same effect with statute miles and nautical miles.

Because each of those measures was based on a different standard; and then
messed with to match another standard. This is a kludge and a recipe for
confusion.
 
> 2. The grid squares on deck plans are 1.5 meters on a side. A cube 1.5 meters
> on a side is 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 3.375. Four such cubes = 13.5 cubic meters.
> Assuming a deck height of 3 meters, that means that two squares stacked with
> cubes to a height of 2 equals 13.5 meters or one ton.

And in my system of 1 x 1 x 3.5 blocks, we end up with 4 in a square = 14
m^3 = 1 ton.

Arguably the difference is minor (The difference between the two
standards is 3.6%), but it is an annoying one because the
two are a pain to interconvert.
 
> 3. I think the measure has to be 13.5 cubic meters.

Well, then they changed the definition of what a 'displacement ton' is.

Admittedly, I'm hampered about CT stuff, and I've done all my design work
with FFS, QSDS, and SSDS (and FFS2, soon;), and they have all defined a
displacement ton as "The volume of one metric ton of liquid hydrogen",
which works out to 14.28 m^3, or rounded to 14 m^3

All of this matters little, UNLESS the NAH is going to come out saying
that a displacement ton is 13.5 m^3. Then, the design system and the
mapping system are going to be based on different $@#!$@ definitions, and
there will be no end of hell to pay from the gearheads on the list.

FOEX, my 200 Td Yugobox design becomes 207 Td under the CT system. While
it doesn't sound like much, that changes things for that ship quite a
bit...that's three more staterooms that I get or seven more tons of cargo,
'for free'! At standard cargo and passenger rates that adds a _lot_ to my
monthly bottom line.

That would make a difference in running the ship, hearkening back to the
"Can a Free Trader Make It in the Imperium?" flamew^H^H^H discussion we
had a while back. 

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1477
***********************************
