Traveller-digest      Thursday, June 26 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1480



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Greetings, again, gang!
In defence of MT...and more...
Skill Descriptions
Space Combat Probabilities
T4.1 Task Suggestions
Re: Re: Anomalies stuff
Re: The KBv2.0 Challenge
Re: The MT task system was *FAR* from perfect...
Re: In defence of MegaTraveller
Re: King Richard (was Deckplan Question)
Re: Meta-facts?
Re: Space Combat Probabilities
Re: Corsairs
PE Software
Re: Why the MT system _is_ a good choice, pt II (retort to KB)

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 21:51:41 -0700
From: David Smart <dsmart@flash.net>
Subject: Greetings, again, gang!

After being off the TML for the last 3 months or so, it's
nice to see the Flame (or is that "flames") still going.

Um...anyone know where the digest archives are kept? I'd
like to get up to speed on the Task topic, particularly
T4.1, and I forgot the archive location.  (hey, it's
been awhile...)

David Smart
|aka Daven Hevelin           |
|Captain/Owner - S.S. Warlock|

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 21:59:43 -0500
From: "Andrew Akins" <igor@netins.net>
Subject: In defence of MT...and more...

I got the feeling that this is one of those things where people aren't
gonna budge...but here's my take:

The problem is our differing definitions - every point that someone has
offered to support MT has been true - and every rebuttle by Kenneth has
been true as well.

Skills vs. Stats
- ------------------------------------------
In KBv2, skills and stats are "equivalent". In MT, skills outweigh stats.
So which is better? That depends entirely on your philosophy of gaming. I
favor the MT view. I can provide no concrete, statistical reason - it just
sits well with my definition. If you believe the two are equalent -- you
gotta go with KBv2.

The Stat/5 problem
- ------------------------------------------
Kenneth claims that the division during combat, as your stats change (from
damage), detracts from the MT system. He may see it that way, but I have NO
problem remembering 1-4 = 0, 5-9=+1, 10-14=+2 and 15-19=+3. Again, opinions
may vary.

The spectacular success problem
- ------------------------------------------
Kenneth seems to have a problem with the fact that his doctor has a smaller
chance for a "normal" success than the medic, even though he has an overall
better chance of any kind of success...I must admit that this one stumps
me...I simply don't comprehend it as a problem. The doctor is good...heck,
he's great! Most of his procedures, when of average difficulty, are going
to be spectacular. This is exactly how I envision it.

The number of dice
- ------------------------------------------
This is purely an opinion thing - just like the half-die. Some people don't
mind it. OThers hate it. Some people don't mind rolling seven dice. Others
want only two. While you can do some statistical handwaving to support a
particular dice system, peoples desires are important as well. I prefer 2
dice. No other reason other than I like it.

Added details
- ------------------------------------------
In my final bid for MT, I'd like to say that I love the rules for time,
uncertain tasks, hasty tasks, cautious tasks, etc...true, these could be
added to KBv2, I imagine. But their with MT right now.

Kenneth has challenged someone to show up his KBv2. I suspect that it
cannot be done. Not that Kenneth is short sided - quite the contrary, I
have found most his posts to be intelligent and insightful. The problem is
that we have reached the point where our differences are based in the
perception of definitions and situations. I personally feel that I have
shot down every one of Kenneth's attacks on MT. Just like he feels that he
has defended against every attack vs. Kbv2. Both of us are right. And
neither will convince the other.

What I recommend is this...let's continue our dialogs for the purpose of
showing Marc our views and feelings. Eventually, he'll make a choice for
SOME system (perhaps not any of ours).

Whatever the choice he makes, I recommend that we take the time to publish
on the web (and perhaps in JTAS ) the alternatives.

I can guarentee that when I play traveller, my task system will be more
like MT than KBv2 or T4.1...and I suspect that kenneth is gonna use his
system no matter what too :)

IfI have offended Kenneth or anyone else, I appologize.


+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Andrew Akins                                                       |
| Home: igor@ames.net - http://www.ames.net/igor/                    |
| 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: Wed, 25 Jun 97 22:00:39 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Skill Descriptions

On 06/21/97 at 10:37 PM,  "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
said:

>I second Scott's recommendation that this is done for the other stats  in
>T4.1, but I would also like to see something similiar done for  skills.

>Something like:

>Level      Definition
>=====     ========
>1             Novice
>2             Skilled
>3             Professional
>4             Expert
>5             Master

>etc.

>Eris has listed a good description of what skill levels should be  defined
>as some time ago.  I remember agreeing with what he had to  say.

>Maybe if we ask him nicely, he'll repost it.

>How about it Eris?

Well, after rummaging around here's one description I posted way back in
March.

Level 0 - You saw somebody do it once, and if you're lucky you won't
          hurt yourself trying.

Level 1 - Novice apprentice or beginning student after a few months
          of study.

Level 2 - Advanced apprentice or student after a couple years of
          study.

Level 3 - Journeyman, BS/BA graduate, Medical Student.

Level 4 - Journeyman nearing Master status, a Professional with
          on-the-job experience, someone with an advanced education
          like a Masters or even PhD, or a practicing MD.

Level 5 - A Master of a craft, an Expert in a field, or a medical
          specialist with the training and experience to back it up.

Level 6 - A Grand Master, a leading authority in the field, or a
          Guru.

Level 7 - Yoda, Steven Hawking or Michael Jordan.

Level 8 - "...in the beginning..."

If Marc *is* going to make higher Skill Levels normal, we'll want to change
my descriptions from Level 4 on up not hitting "ghodhood" until Level-15,
with demi-ghodhood at 13-14, and so on. ;->

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

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 21:50:50 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Space Combat Probabilities

Stepping aside from the religious discussion going on about tasks, I'd like
to open another can'o'worms--space combat.

Now, I liked BL. I liked the mechanics, I liked the feel, I liked the level
of detail. For running through a simple combat coming up during a
roleplaying session, it was a bit too complicated, but not much. Well,
during the FF&S2 work, some of the fundamentals of BL got shaken up a bit,
so I decided to sit down and take a hack at rolling my own detailed space
combat system for t4, with the intent of "collapsing" it down for
quick'n'dirty as well. I'm a gearhead, so I started with some fundamental
analysis--what are the rough probabilities of hitting a target at a given
range.

Well, I've already run into a slight difficulty--the range bands are WAY
too granular. First estimate of hit probability for a 100Td sphere is 86%
at 50,000km. The next range band, 500,000km, the hit probability drops WAY
down to 1% ... that's MUCH to large a drop between range bands ("Hurry up
and hit him, before he reaches 500kkm!"). Linear, tenth-light-second bands
work much better.

For those who are interested, and want to discuss creating a detailed
system, my first cut at the calculations are posted at

	http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj/Traveller/SpaceCombat.html

This is just the first, back-of-the envelope (or spreadsheet) analysis, and
I intend to flesh it out some more. Please pardon the unfinished appearance
of the page. I'm doing the original document in Word97, and the Mickeysh*t
Word to HTML converter sucks. I tweaked it a bit manually, but not much.

PS: This was inspired by something Anders posted during the FF&S2 process,
BTW. Thanks, Anders!
- -- 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: 26 Jun 1997 04:22:19 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: T4.1 Task Suggestions

Two more (mutually contradictory) suggestions:

1) Limit the attribute to 2x skill (or 3x skill).  Keep everything else the
same.  This way you need some training to make use of your natural ability,
and no publications need rewriting.

2) Instead of specifying difficulty, specify the skill level where this is an
average task, then roll against attribute (or using attribute as modifier). 
Possessing more or less skill changes the difficulty.  Might be a closer
model of reality, but invalidates a lot of books.


Hm. Third suggestion.

3) Keep the present task system, renaming it the "space opera" style. 
(Because a character can be good at everything with high attributes.)  Make a
new system that can use the same task descriptions (in terms of
skill/attribute/level) but has a different balance, and call that the "hard
SF" style.  BOTH systems would be official, and which one is used would be up
to the gamers.  Then gaming groups can pick a task system to match their
style, and it will still be Traveller.

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

Date: 26 Jun 1997 04:05:14 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Re: Re: Anomalies stuff

>I'm aware of that, but there seems to be quite a lot of this TL13+ 
>relic tech out there

Actually, _is_ there a lot of TL13+ relic stuff around, or have we just had a
lot of adventures with it in?

This is rather like the old Virus argument in TNE, in which a plot device
intended to be rare (and stated as such in the rulebook) figured in a great
many of the adventures (about a third).  My opinion is that Virus is rare in
the TNE setting, but a great many authors wanted to write a Virus adventure,
so a lot of Virus adventures were published.

In the same way, the TL13+ relics could well be extremely rare, but because
adventures are by definition not routine, we've seen more of them.

That said, I haven't read Anomalies yet, just glanced through it.  If anyone
can give me a page reference that contradicts my opinion, I'll happily
relabel my opinion "<varient setting>" :-)

Oh yes, I'm filling out failure reports.  If anyone can think of a tactful
way to say "Your offspring failed because they are rude obnoxious twits who
do no work, talk continuously, and handed in a nearly blank final exam."
_please_ email me -- I'm getting desperate :-/

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 22:45:35 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: The KBv2.0 Challenge

vanya wrote:

[much excellent logics deleted]
> 
> **What Does It All Mean:**
>         It's very simple: if you can agree with the FAs of KBv2.0:
> 
>         FA#1: Skill vs Stat - "KBv2.0 weights them equally.  That's how it should
> be."
>         FA#2: Success vs Exceptional Success -  "the doctor should beat the NPC on
> all levels--regular success, exceptional success, and total success."
>         FA#3: Rolling Handfuls of dice is OK in Traveller**
> 
> then it is definitely the best task system I have ever seen, and I will
> never touch it again in my entire gaming career.
> 

This was, by far, the most coherent, well-written, logical post on this
topic
I've yet seen, including my own. I heartily agree with Vanya on this
one.

KBv2.0 isn't broken and neither is MT. They just work from different
assumptions,
with predictably different results. 

Originally I had favored KBv2.0 to replace T4's task system. Now, having
paid
close attention to all the posts on this thread, I came to this post. It 
forced me to ask myself if I was comfortable with the three FA's
mentioned.
Regrettably, I am not. I must now support the MT system over KBv2.0.


- -- 
Erwin Fritz
Unix/NT/LAN Guy
Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd.
http://www.glja.com

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 04:55:16 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: The MT task system was *FAR* from perfect...

On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:48:42 -0700, Chris Griffen wrote:

> Kenneth Bearden wrote:
> 
> >Many of us (me included) look back fondly on this system for the many
> >hours of enjoyment it gave us back in the MT days.  But if you look
> >at the system with a discerning eye, you will see that the system is
> >no better than T4 or T4.1.
> 
> Kenneth is right. I've snipped out his reasons, but each of them,
> especially #1, "the stat problem," are true. The MT task system did not
> account *at all* for stats.
> 
> Don't make your choice based on nostalgia. The MT task system, while a step
> up from CT, was far from perfect.
> 
> The best solution is either KBv2.0 or some facsimile thereof that weighs
> stats/skills equally or somewhat in favor of skills.
> 
> Finally, I've written a brief addendum to Kenneth's list of problems:
> 
> Problem #4
> ==========
> If you are highly skilled enough at certain tasks, say Gun Combat, you can
> achieve impossible tasks that simply should not be possible. For instance,
> you have good marksmanship skill, say Combat Rifleman-5. If you roll high
> enough on your task roll, using a gauss rifle or whatever, you can
> penetrate battledress and wound or even kill its wearer with one shot or
> burst.
> 
> This should simply not be possible. TNE accounted for this and T4 needs to
> find a way or it defies reality too much.

Above all else, we must consider that Marc is 99% UNlikely to change
the general framework of the Traveller task system.  This will most
likely be the final crack at the T4.x rulebook and I doubt IG will
survive if they have to put out yet another revision.  Products have
already been released that feature a task system using multiple dice,
and reverting to MT, no matter how many list members request it, will
simply not happen.  Otherwise, IG will most certainly be pressured
into issuing new releases of *these* products too, just like everyone
demanded with FS.

Someone mentioned that TML has possibly 300-500 members.  While I
don't have official information regarding this figure or the number of
T4 master rulebooks that IG has sold, let it be simply said that IG
stands to lose more my alienating T4 players that are *not* on this
list (and are therefore, unaware that their precious T4 is about to
undergo a major change) than the 30 or 40 TMLers that have expressed
their interest in using a MT-style task system for T4.1.  I'm pretty
positive that Marc's intentions are not to provide a better game for
*us*, but a better game for Traveller players *everywhere* (on or off
the mailing list).

Eris posted a task system earlier this week.  Although it was less
than well received, it _did_work_ with the current T4.1 system (and
would have worked with previously released T4 products, also).
Merrick, too, posted a system that could work with T4, albeit in a
somewhat unique way that few other people have thought of.  While
these two systems may not become the new T4.1 Task System, their
authors at least were thinking realistically as to what type of task
system could be meshed with the current T4 system.  Any task system
proposed MUST be backwards compatible to some extent, or you risk
angering potentially thousands of non-TML Traveller players.

While Marc may have mentioned that he wished to model T4 after Classic
Traveller, the *primary* goal of the new task system most certainly is
that it works with previously released T4 material *first*.

I know my opinion is my own, but it is also an opinion "untarnished"
by any MT experience.  I have never played MT, having jumped from CT
directly to T4, with a short stay in TNE-land.  Needless to say, while
I don't have anything bad to say about MT, I don't have anything good
to say either.

I guess what I'd like to ask Marc is:

"How far can our task system proposals be from what is currently
printed in T4.0?"


James W. Lindsay     Vancouver, British Columbia
  "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"

"Give me the strength to change the things I can,
    the grace to accept the things I cannot,
         and a great big bag of money."

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 22:36:33 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: In defence of MegaTraveller

Kenneth Bearden wrote:
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> OK, let's look at the same example but change the skill level to 1.
> 
> Average task.  Stat-9.  Skill-1.
> 
> Character needs 5+ on the dice.  If he rolls a 5 or 6, he as rolled
> regular success.  If he rolls a 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12, he rolls a
> SS.
> 
> That's about a 25% chance to roll regular success and a 42% chance to
> roll SS.
> 
> You said that the guy with a level 3 skill should have a better
> chance of rolling SS than he does for a regular success.  I don't
> agree with that, but just to humor you, here's the same example with
> sombody with a level 1 skill.
> 
> And look at that--his chance of rolling SS is still better than his
> chance of rolling regular success by almost a 2 to 1 margin.
> 
> MT is busted, and it does not work in T4 very well.
> 
> KBv2.0 IS the better choice.
> 
> > You are missing the point ! The doctor has a HIGHER chance of spectacular
> > success,
> > and a better chance of success OVERALL.
> 
> I am not missing that point, and I can see that the doctor has a
> better chance overall.
> 
> What I am arguing is that the doctor should beat the NPC on all
> levels--regular success, exceptional success, and total success.
> 

No. The doctor, because he's an expert in his field, has a lower
chance of performing mediocrity. That is, he has a better chance
of excellence. That's why he's a doctor. Of course, this applies to
Routine/Average tasks.

A fighter pilot has a poor chance of doing an average barrel roll
with a Cessna. That same guy has an excellent chance of doing a
really nicely executed barrel roll.

>  Plus, it is more flexible and allows for such things as
> > the time it took to
> > perform a task, mishaps ... I could go on.
> 
> Please do.  Take the KBv2.0 challenge.  Look at that post and send a
> MT vs KBv2.0 challenge to me.
> 

You fail to address his point about time to perform tasks, mishaps
and the like. How does KBv2.0 deal with this? Don't get me wrong;
I'm not attacking you, I'm just curious.

> Let's see how the two systems fair against each other.  If I were a
> betting man (and I am), I'd put my money on KBv2.0.
> 

Of course. You created it. This is to be expected.


- -- 
Erwin Fritz
Unix/NT/LAN Guy
Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd.
http://www.glja.com

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:36:55 +2
From: "RFXn" <mlaakso@utu.fi>
Subject: Re: King Richard (was Deckplan Question)

On 25 Jun 97 at 8:52, Peter H. Brenton wrote:

> Don't let the above keep anyone from picking up the aforesaid
> adventure if available (for under $10 or so).  Its value is in the
> NPC descriptions and descriptive sections of "The Most Luxurious
> Liner in The Galaxy".

	Anybody ever checked how badly the deckplans in Judge's Guild's 
"Doom of the Singing Star" are off-tonnage? I never got around that 
myself, but somehow thinking of a cruise liner with a spinal mount 
meson gun, J5 and pretty many maneuvering Gs wouldn't carry thousands 
of passengers, 37,000 tons or not.

	BTW, one of the best adventures I ran was a variant of "Argon 
Gambit", set aboard Opal Nova (A Singing Star -class liner). To make 
the deckplans match I reasoned the ship was originally an Imperial 
light cruiser, salvaged from drifting in the Alpha Crucis sector by a 
group of free traders, partially demilitarized and fitted with 
luxury accommodations. Opal Nova makes frequent runs between hi-pop 
worlds in the Wilds. Still, no sane pirate is going to attack a 
37,000 ton ship armed with 6 100-ton PA bays and about 50 120Mj 
lasers... 

	7 months later, the PCs are still in trouble with Naval 
Intelligence. :) Sold out to SolSec, the traitors!


/RFXn     mlaakso@utu.fi        aka. Matti Laakso
 -Phone: +358-(0)2-237 9928       YO-Kyla 19 A 11
 -IRC: RFXn                       FIN-20540  TURKU
 -Talk: RFXn@delenn.yok.utu.fi    Finland

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:44:51 +2
From: "RFXn" <mlaakso@utu.fi>
Subject: Re: Meta-facts?

On 25 Jun 97 at 9:09, Anders Backman wrote:

> >        Oh, I don't want to know _everything_ about the plot line for the next
> >five years. But I would appreciate it matching with what I've already
> >learned about the plotline from the last FIFTEEN years.
> 
> I agree on that! The trouble with T4 offerings is that the authors
> seem never to have actually played Traveller given the amount of
> canon trashing they managed to put in so few volumes.

	I second that. However, a certain particularly ruthless and 
influential solomani (namely, my gf) asked me to ask if somebody on 
this list could explain more about the facts behind the Empress Wave 
(TNE, Regency Sourcebook). Are the authors on the list? We have a 
couple of questions we'd like to ask, just come along quietly... :)

/RFXn     mlaakso@utu.fi        aka. Matti Laakso
 -Phone: +358-(0)2-237 9928       YO-Kyla 19 A 11
 -IRC: RFXn                       FIN-20540  TURKU
 -Talk: RFXn@delenn.yok.utu.fi    Finland

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 07:57:44 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Space Combat Probabilities

>For those who are interested, and want to discuss creating a detailed
>system, my first cut at the calculations are posted at
>
>        http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj/Traveller/SpaceCombat.html
>
>This is just the first, back-of-the envelope (or spreadsheet) analysis, and
>I intend to flesh it out some more. Please pardon the unfinished appearance
>of the page. I'm doing the original document in Word97, and the Mickeysh*t
>Word to HTML converter sucks. I tweaked it a bit manually, but not much.
>
>PS: This was inspired by something Anders posted during the FF&S2 process,
>BTW. Thanks, Anders!

Well thank you. There obviously has to be more range bands than 50 000 km,
500 000 km and it seems to me that 50 000 km, 150 000 km, 500 000 km seems
OK (the original range bands for the sensor calculations Bruce did
methinks). There's a minor error in a formula at the website: s = (amax
t^2)/2, you forgot to divide by 2 at least in the formula as I haven't
checked your numbers yet. BTW when doing calculations for a range band do
you use the upper limit of the band or the average range? For the
5,15,50,150 progression I use 3,10,30,100 for my calculations (I use the
5,15,50 progression for personal combat, vehicular combat and space
combat).

If you add in a small constant time delay for computer calculations be it
image analysis from sensors or vibration compensation for the
sensors/weapons the propabilities flattens out a bit. One could set a
timelag addition based on the ships computer power (=calculation ability).
As computer factors scales as +1 = x10 faster. The computers effective
factor would be reduced by 1 if more than 1 target was tracked, -2 for more
than 10 targets tracked and so forth. I'd say that a target should be
considered anyt ships/missiles with the same vector and locations ie task
group in BR. As Fleet tactics govern the number of active task groups a
side can have this equates to a clear to hit advantage as the commander
with low fleet tactics will have to group his ships thus reducing the
computer timelag and increasing to hit propabilities.


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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:58:51 +2
From: "RFXn" <mlaakso@utu.fi>
Subject: Re: Corsairs

On 25 Jun 97 at 3:04, GypsyComet@aol.com wrote:

> 
>   A very basic set of Corsair deckplans was published in one issue
> of Traveller's Digest (middle teen issue, I think).  Bleh.  No
> other Corsair plans have ever seen print (aside from T4-Starships)
> that I'm aware of.

	Bleh indeed. The plans in TD #15 p.9 have pretty little to do with 
the external view illustration of the corsair (MT, Imperial 
Encyclopedia). The adventure, "Krimm's Paw" is one of the weakest TD 
adventures anyway, so it's not such a big loss. IMO, plain pirate- 
bashing doesn't constitute a balanced plot.

	But, I'm intrigued by your idea of Corsair being an old Solomani 
merchant design. Gypsy, let me know then you get the TNE stats 
online. In return, I have TNE stats and deckplans for two ships 
designs; a Stratocaster -class 400-ton Far Trader (TL 11, Solomani) 
and a Tuareg -class 200-ton scout (TL 12, the same).

/RFXn     mlaakso@utu.fi        aka. Matti Laakso
 -Phone: +358-(0)2-237 9928       YO-Kyla 19 A 11
 -IRC: RFXn                       FIN-20540  TURKU
 -Talk: RFXn@delenn.yok.utu.fi    Finland

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:31:17 +0100
From: John Wood <John@elvw.demon.co.uk>
Subject: PE Software

Here's a summary of (most) requests in response to my vague question,
"What would you want Pocket Empires software to do?".  A few people
requested Excel spreadsheets; one wanted any code to be in Java, for
portability.  Anything I write, however, will be C++ (for preference) or
C where necessary.

Specific details (some overlap):
 1. Import sector information (from HIWG, Excel, database).
 2. Generate sector information.
 3. Create background information.
 4. Handle all number-crunching & die-rolling.
 5. Manage economy, resources, world development.
 6. Smart non-player PE planning/trade route building, etc.
 7. Good presentation of data.
 8. Allow variant rules.

Overall aims:
 A. Aid GM book-keeping (most common request).
 B. Allow solo PE play.
 C. Assist running a PBEM .
 D. Allow multi-player game, as a "server".
 E. Modelling tool to test assumptions.

A few people said they were already working on software, or thinking of
doing so.  However, nobody mentioned #8 (allowing variant rules), so I
thought I might carve out my own niche by working on a script language
interpreter module which any other C programmer could use, rather than
attempting a fully-fledged application which will have competition.
There are some nice, meaty design issues to work on, so it should keep
me happy for a while! ;-)

I've no intention of rabbiting on about software issues on the list
again for a while - I've already proved how technonerdy I can get!  If
any programmers are interested in any of the above, contact me by
private email.

I'd like to thank everyone who responded to any of my questions.
Thanks!
 
John G. Wood  |  john@elvw.demon.co.uk  |  Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 16:09:55 +1000
From: Jason Anderson <midnight@kagi.com>
Subject: Re: Why the MT system _is_ a good choice, pt II (retort to KB)

>>Voting for T4.1 with revisions or variants thereof:
>>-14( some of these state that it can't stand as it is though)
>>
>>Voting for KBv2.0 (or other KB variants or similar systems) were:
>>-12
>>
>>Voting for a system along the lines of MT
>>-31
>>
>>TNE-like D20 system
>>-3
>>
>>Other votes generally in favor of change (no specific system)
>>-12
>
>Seems that quite a few people don't agree with you, Kenneth.  By 2.5x,
>people still seem to prefer an MT variant over a KBv20 variant, and 16%
>more like the MT system than KBv20 and T4.1 combined.

Well, I guess I'd better make my vote known (I did _very_ early on in this
debate, but it didn't seem to get counted).

My preference is KBv2. I have no problem with multiple dice, nor the
assumptions that Ken has made (although some of the arguments made by Vanya
in the KBv2 challenge thread, in particular the success vs exceptional
success part, were food for thought).

However, given that several products have already been published using the
proposed T4.1 task system, I would be willing to settle for that system if
the SS and SF from KBv2 were used (I'm not sure how the percentages for
this work out though). The current proposed method for SS/SF is, IMHO,
wrong. (Note: willing to settle for the system doesn't mean I'd actually
use that system - but then I'm sure most people on the list will use there
own system no matter what the final task system published in T4.1 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 #1480
***********************************
