Traveller-digest       Friday, June 27 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1489



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Space Combat Probabilities
Tired of task systems, my vote anyways.
Re: The MT task system was *FAR* from perfect...
Re: The MT task system was *FAR* from perfect...
Re: Space Combat Probabilities
Re: Rule of Man TL (444 lines long)
Greetings.
Hardware and O/S
Pistols at 900 paces!

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 97 21:24:12 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Space Combat Probabilities

On 06/26/97 at 07:52 PM,  CardSharks@aol.com said:

>In a message dated 97-06-26 18:52:34 EDT, you write:

> >Well, I've already run into a slight difficulty--the range bands are WAY
> >too granular. 
> 
> *Big* surprise. I'm fairly sure I complained about this already earlier.
> You can use fractional range bands - 5000/16000/50000/160000 for some
> improvement (there's some provision for this in my sensor rules.)
> 
> Bruce
>  >>

>Are we talling about 30,000 km range bands?

Personally, I like 30,000 km range bands, or hexes for a more detailed
combat system.  

Eris

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:24:21 -0400
From: Ross Coburn <ross@ican.net>
Subject: Tired of task systems, my vote anyways.

I am heartily tired of this thread, and especially so of KB's brand of
evangelism.  I've tried not saying anything, but it's getting to the point
where it's ruining my enjoyment of the TML.

Here's my vote, and experiences with task systems to date:

4.1 doesn't sound all that hot, as I loathe .5d and am not fond of
multiples of dice-rolling in Traveller.  (I have been a WW Storyteller for
as long as there has been a WW and find many dice fine there, but as I have
also been Travelling for most of its life, I have come to associate this
game with 2d6, for better or for worse.)

KB2.whatever is just as bad or worse, in that it has even MORE dice,
annoying skill multipliers and someone doing their level best to ram it
down my throat every time I log on.

Megatraveller (as descended from CT) wasn't perfect either, but dammit, it
FELT right.  It had an elegance that the other systems lack completely,
sans exception.  (Glenn Grant plays with me, and I love him dearly, but 2d6
to get a range of 11-66 is just as awful to me in Traveller terms.)

In designing a system, elegance is of extreme importance to me; as much so
as statistical gobbledigook.

As a player in Roderick Elliott's game I have reluctantly gone with his use
of KB2.whatever, but would drop it in a heartbeat for MT or some tweak
thereof that kept the original's simplicity.  I've seen a couple of
suggestions posted here, some intriguing.

(As an aside, I am well aware that I am saying that dividing a stat is
acceptable (a la MT) while multiplying a skill isn't.  Damned right.  I
have a highly developed sense of esthetics, and the latter simply doesn't
cut it for me.)


This is not meant as a flame to anyone, but rather as a personal expression
of dissatisfaction with the present regime.

As to the individual who mentioned that he was thinking about setting up a
bozo filter (generic term) for Kenneth's posts, I heartily agree.  Were I
not receiving this list in digest form, I would have already done so.

Sorry Darroch, your favourite system doesn't agreee with me.  I'll still be
there Friday though, as anyone who thinks that the system makes the game
doesn't know much about roleplaying.  <- Inflammatory personal opinion.  I
don't recall being under any obligation to be nice or PC tonight.

//rant OFF

Ross Coburn
ross@ican.net
ross@ptm.ca

"Insert clever quote here."

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 03:32:47 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: The MT task system was *FAR* from perfect...

On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 16:10:25 -0700, Douglas E. Berry wrote:

> At 09:48 AM 6/25/97 -0700, Chris Griffen wrote:
> 
> >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.
> 
> Chris, as a former sniper, I was able to put 3 rounds through a half-inch
> target at 150m.

This has nothing to do with skill and everything to do with weapon &
ammunition design (unless you forgot to mention that your aim point
was known to you as the target's "weak spot").

> Doesn't it stand to reason that someone with a phenominal
> level of skill could find the weak point (visor, joints, etc..) and put one
> round where it counts?

Only if the game system *has* weak points in such armour (which T4
does not... well, not as written, anyway).  To push the above example
even further, a skilled target shooter with a body pistol should be
able to do the same.  In other words, such a task should be limited by
the physics of the situation, not the skill of those involved.

If the target *did* have a weak spot, and its armory value was still
higher than the body pistol could penetrate, it would still be an
impossible feat.

> Plus, the game is supposed to be *heroic*.. I don't want to have to have to
> tell a player that it's impossible to stop the charging Consular Guard.. I
> want him to know that he has a 1-in-a-hundred chance of making the shot.. I
> want to see sweat on those dice..  :)

But if the task truly is impossible (eg: driving a screwdriver through
the side of an APC), the game system should reflect this.  I actually
snapped the T4 rulebook shut and didn't look at it again for nearly a
week when I read the following phrase:

"Because the dice code for ranged combat tasks is dependent upon
distance rather than weapon type, it is theoretically possible for a
character to hit a target at 1500 meters with a pistol, though very
unlikely."

'Nuff said.

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: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 03:49:13 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: The MT task system was *FAR* from perfect...

On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:22:56 MET, Volker A. Greimann wrote:

> Zhodani agents report that James Lindsay wrote:

I didn't post this.  Chris Griffen did.

> -> > 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.

> Why? There should always be "That one lucky shot". Of course a BD can 
> be penetrated, there is no such thing as a perfect defence. Every 
> Armor has it's weak spot and MT represents that. Such is life and 
> such is MT.  

This makes absolutely no sense.  No matter how skilled you are, an
M-16 will not penetrate the hide of an M1 Abrams (one of numerous
"perfect defenses" vs small arms).  Such is life (but not so according
to MT).  BD is supposed to be the pinnacle of personal portable
defense.  Since the MT task system doesn't particularly care whether
you are using a gauss rifle or a body pistol to perform the above
task, both have the same chance of succeeding.  Now the referee has to
decide where to draw the line.



I *did* write this, however.

> ->  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

> I agree. "J.", however posted a perfect solution to the dilemma: Use 
> generic task desciptions in future products and offer alternatives in 
> JTAS or other publications. The more people argue for another task 
> system, the more willing will IG be to consider at least that! I 
> don't need to see the MT-System in the T4.1 rulebook, (although i'd 
> be all for that!)  a one-line reference to other publications would 
> be enough by all means.

That is fine.  To be a responsible game company, however, all proposed
task systems should generate roughly equal results (regarding
percentages at certain tasks for success, failure, SS, and SF).
Otherwise, tasks using one task system could become easier (or harder)
than others.  Things then become complicated when you have to include
DMs for a particular task system because it generates results that are
radically different that whatever appears in T4.1.

The problem is: MT's system doesn't produce results anywhere close to
the current T4.1 system.

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: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 21:02:42 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: Space Combat Probabilities

>are we talking about 30000km range bands?

No, we're talking about the 5000km/50000km/500000km "official" range bands
that seem likely to be enshrined in T4.1 space combat.

Bruce

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:36:42 -0600
From: lguatney@carbon.cudenver.edu (Leroy William Lu Guatney)
Subject: Re: Rule of Man TL (444 lines long)

[[[[***** WARNING: 444 lines long *****]]]]
On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 11:16:48 -0500 (CDT)
Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com> writes:
>Subject: Re: Rule of Man TL (was Re: Anomalies...)
>
>For my curiousity's sake, Leroy, would you list some of the previous
>references to a high-tech Second Imperium?  I'm more than willing to
>believe you: I just can't for the life of me recall any such.
>

I'll get to this as soon as I can.  In the meantime, you'll just have
to trust me.  The problem is, that these things are _so_ obvious, and
I am certain that some people have their minds made up already, so I
am not sure it would help them.  As for you, as I said, I'll get to it.
In the meantime, here's some perspective.  I have been running a campaign
in the Rim since the Solomani Rim was published.  Anyone who has _really_
researched the region knows what J.P. and I have posted to this list.

I am interested in any more discussion that we can have here.  I am in
the middle of 15 semester credit-hours worth of midterms.  Since the
chatter has kind of died down, I'll respond to much of what has been
said since my original post.

On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 10:13:34 -0700
Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu> writes:
>Subject: Re: Rule of Man TL (was Re: Anomalies...)
>
>Could you point me to some of the references, please?  I own a significant

Please see the above.

>Note that Darrians, etc., are a slightly different case, as while they are

Actually, the Darrians were contacted by Terrans from the Rule of Man.  It
is possible that some author in the near future could even explain their
TL as influenced by the RoM.

>(I am especially looking for evidence that the RoM made it above TL12,
>since that would put it above Sylea, and thus make relic hunting adventures
>a valid type of adventure for M0 Syleans.)

Like I told JL above, just trust me for now.  I would like to hear any
comments _before_ I reveal my exact sources, but they are firm and _clearly_
in context.  Only if you _don't_ want to consider a POV that has been
substantiated in print through most of Traveller's (the game) history, will
you want to argue with our premise.

>Scott

On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 19:10:25 +0100
SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com> writes:
>Subject: Re: Rule of Man TL
>
>However, I too own most Traveller stuff published by GDW, DGP and IG, and
>can't recall any references to RoM tech being in excess of TL12 *except
>for* IG publications. I am not denying that you may be right about the
>numerous references, but can you cite some of them to stop me thinking I'm
>going mad...

Dom, please don't go mad... :)

Seriously, I am not playing games with anyone.  I would just like to hear
the "other" POV on this subject.  I will post what is where, with page
numbers and everything.

>Dom
>

On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 11:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
John R. Snead <jsnead@netcom.com> writes:
>Subject: Re: Rule of Man TL (was Re: Anomalies...)
>
>I've got most everything too, and I've not noticed such references.  Could
>you provide page numbers, and perhaps a few quotes.  Doing so would go a
>long way to settling this debate. 
>
>Many Thanks-

Just so that you would know that I am reading _everything_ on this subject.
As I said quite awhile ago, I have a particular interest in knowing what
the opinions are here.

>
>- -John Snead jnead@netcom.com

On Sat, 21 Jun 1997 13:34:56 +1000
Darryl Adams <dadams@tig.com.au> writes:
>Subject: Re: Rule of Man TL (was Re: Anomalies...)
>
>Actually I have no problems with Terran Confederacy having very warped Tech
>levels. 

I have always figured that there were a lot of people out there who _had_
been following things and liked the idea as well.  I told Marc about my
views on a phone call a long time ago, because I had Terra at TL16 for
that period in my own campaign.

>IMHO Tech levels are a Vilani tool to project ist supiority over every one
>else. Given the overwealming power of the beauro's , the Tech level would

You raise an interesting point inadvertantly.  The _only_ sources of the
Vilani bureaux actually running things (directly) in the First Imperium
are in the MT Vilani & Vargr references.  CT sources hint at influence
within the VI (much as megacorps influence(d) the TI).

>The TC however, is a technological free wheeler that was unhampered by such

A view consistent with what has been written on the Terran Mercantile
Community.

>The Rule of Man however would have slammed this back to a grinding holt.
>The Terran Occupation would have a nightmare of logistics supply, so by

I have never denied this somewhat sensible view of the nature of things
in the Rule of Man.  Afterall, it was disparagingly called the Ramshackle
Empire.

>Darryl

On Sat, 21 Jun 1997 00:48:01 -0400
hdhale@siscom.net (Harold Hale) writes:
>Subject: Re: Rule of Man TL (was Re: Anomalies...)
>
>Joseph "Chepe" Lockett wrote:
>
>>For my curiousity's sake, Leroy, would you list some of the previous
>>references to a high-tech Second Imperium?  I'm more than willing to
>>believe you: I just can't for the life of me recall any such.
>
>   So far as I know, there is but one, and it is generally considered
>errata.

You should check out the past posts on this subject.  You missed a lot.

>   No publication has said "the tech level of the Rule of Man was 'x'",
>'x' being a number between 12 and whatever.  However, there are some
>clues available.

I've never stated this either.  I've only been raising awareness here.

>   The first is in the MegaTraveller Imperial Encyclopedia, which
>contains a timeline on pages 6-7 that suggests that the "Terran Navy
>uses artificially intelligent robots", the date for this, -2389, is 134
>years prior to the end of the last of the Interstellar Wars.  This would
>lead one to conclude that the Rule of Man must have had a TL of at least
>16, perhaps even 17.

I'm glad you remembered J.P. and I brought you up to speed on this over
a year ago. :)

>   This is contradicted, however, by at least two other sources.  The
>first, "Book 8: Robots", gives the date -2389 as the year "the Terran
>[snip]
>this is confirmed in DGP's "101 Robots".

The problem is that Book 8 and 101 Robots _PRECEDE_ the MT references.

>   It's apparent that the reference in the Imperial Encyclopedia to
>"artificially intelligent robots" is errata (and there is tons of that
>in MegaTraveller's tables and charts), and the TL 12 figure is probably
>the correct one.  Certainly Traveller Canon (what is generally accepted
>as truth, versus what the publishing company says) places the tech level
>of the ROM at 12, with perhaps some worlds verging on or crossing over
>to 13.

I stated earlier that the table in ImpEncyc is the only supported reference
to a RoM TL of 12.  Actually, I'm not surprised given MT's reputation.
Nothing has been published which countermands any other sources, except the
IE entry, and that is only one contradiction versus a list of things to
support a high TL RoM.  Personally, one _exact_ reference that disagrees with
numerous others is not canon.  Read my previous posts for more details,
rather than my repeating them here.

>   As to other evidence regarding the TL of the Rule of Man, I'd want to
>see proper citations (publication and page numbers) before I'd believe
>that any exists, particularly if it quotes a figure higher than 12 or
>13.  In that regard, T4 doesn't count.

I have thoroughly researched the Solomani Rim material, so I am very much
aware of what the canon says.  I'm not counting T4 as a source because I
am doing proper research.  I am glad to see that T4 is at least in line
with what has been established as precedence.

>Harold

On Sat, 21 Jun 97 21:23 BST-1
aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton) writes:
>Subject: Re: Rule of Man TL
>
>> However, I too own most Traveller stuff published by GDW, DGP and IG, and
>> can't recall any references to RoM tech being in excess of TL12 *except
>> for* IG publications. I am not denying that you may be right about the
>> numerous references, but can you cite some of them to stop me thinking I'm
>> going mad...
>
>You are not alone.

More to be enlightened. Hooray! :)

>Andrew M J Boulton

On Sun, 22 Jun 1997 14:56:17 +0000
Garry Ward <Garry.E.Ward@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Subject: Re: Rule of Man TL (was Re: Anomalies...)
>
>This may be throwing oil on the fire, but 'artificially intelligent' and
>'expert system' are not the same thing. At tech level 12, an 'expert system'
>could be basis for a robotic operating system that, to the average person,
>would make the robot seem intelligent. Household and valet duties would be
>potentially within the range of an expert system. Today's cruise missiles
>are run by 'expert systems' in piloting & navigation. 

Right on target there Garry.  I've had HCI classes, and have not yet taken
my AI requirement.  But, I know enough about computer systems to know that
you are right in your assessment. (I can also agree with most of the reasons
why Virus really sucked for a TNE plot device, but that is another story. :)

>May not be errata, just an imprecise selection of terminology.

Actually, Harold poorly worded his comment there.  Unless his position has
changed from a year ago, he maintained that there must be errata somewhere
that changed the AI reference to 'self-mobile' or somesuch.  Personally, I
doubt that anyone would have bothered with errata for a Chronology entry.
The MT sources are fraught with contradiction, so we are being careful when
weighing their material for research.  That does not mean we have ignored
them though.  We are examining everything that we find of relevance.

>Garry

On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 03:00:05 -0400
hdhale@siscom.net (Harold Hale) writes:
>Subject: Re: TL of ramshackle empire
>
>Anders Backman writes:
>
>>Someone asked about the canonical max TL achieved by RoM and I knew I 
>>had seen it somewhere, it's in the Megatraveller Referee Companion and 
>>it is rated at TL 12.
>
>copy and sure enough, there it is on page 34.  I officially stand
>corrected (I had previously indicated that the TL of the RoM had been
>strongly hinted at, but not actually stated).

Ok.

>   In the case of the Terran Confederation/Second Imperium, we have a

Again, I don't dispute the facts we all know about the RoM.

>   While it is possible that a few worlds achieved TL 13 at some point,
>these worlds would have been located in the Solomani Rim or in an

As I also said before.  I'm glad we agree on some things. :)

>latter stages of the empire, and their technological supremacy been
>relatively short-lived.  

Actually, the apparent tech of the RoM (Terra) really disposes of this
theory.

>approaching TL 14 (as in the infamous vacc suits).  But the evidence is
>clear that the Rule of Man was well on the way to disintegration by

See, even Harold purports that the RoM had disentegrators. :)

>Harold
>

On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 11:02:14 -0400 (EDT)
Ethan Henry <ehenry@mag1.magmacom.com>
>Subject: Re: TL of the Rule of Man (Don't call it Ramshackle!)

Thank you and J.P. thanks you. :)  Actually, I have maintained for
quite awhile now that much of the debate over RoM tech level can be
explained by Third Imperial relativism in historical view, rather
than the Terran relativism which has not yet received much press.
Something we are actively pursuing. It is pretty easy to see how the
TI would want to claim legitimacy by tracing back to the RoM, but
not want to face the facts about what they (RoM) were capable of.

>with Terran "standards". For example, the massive deployment of
>"Windows 2298" across the former Empire of the Stars may have single
>handedly destroyed several worlds that depended heavily on computer-
>controlled climate systems...

:-)>

>Ethan

On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:55:30 +0100 (BST)
mark.wilkin <aa4mwi@zen.sunderland.ac.uk> writes:
>Subject: ROM tech level
>
>Just a quick question but I'm sure I read something about the ROM 
>wholesale cloning and gene-engineering people to work on different worlds.
>And I remember from the information in the Lady Elise adventure in TNE 
>the GM's screen that there are some dolphines, orcas and whales out 
>there "uplifted" to intelligence in the pocket empire along the vampire 
>highway.

Very good!  That's a start. :)

>What tech level was this defined as being? It seems 
>pretty high to me, but I've never read the definition of the tech levels.
>
>Mark Wilkin

On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 08:43:53 +0100
anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman) writes:
>Subject: TL of ramshackle empire
>
>Someone asked about the canonical max TL achieved by RoM and I knew I had

It can't very well be canonical if it flies in the face of published fact.

>/Anders Backman

On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 02:36:32 +1000
Darryl Adams <dadams@tig.com.au> writes:
>Subject: Re: TL of ramshackle empire
>
>One of the things I loved from the DGP book Worldbuilders handbook (or
>something like that, I cant grab the book from here), had different Tech
>Levels for different Technolagy.

That's what I was referring to about differing Tech Levels across
different specializations.  I use it all the time in my campaign.

>Darryl 

On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 02:20:35 +1000
Darryl Adams <dadams@tig.com.au> writes:
>Subject: Re: TL of ramshackle empire
>
>The biggest problem here is of cause in some moduals (I think it was JTAS
>where they had an issue on Terra), where they go into bio-engineering
>dolphins and chimps (al la David Brin Uplift). 
>
>The assumption is that this happened before or during the RoM. (I may be
>wrong, flames to thier usual adress).

Correct. No flames please.

>I shudder to think where that level of bio-engineering fits into a TL.

Now you begin to see what we have been talking about!

>The truth is , we dont know what tech was available due to the lack of
>canon material regarding the Terran Confederation. We do know they did not
>use fighters (T4), but appart from that we dont know how the Terrans did
>things. We have a better idea of the Vilani as the RoM and the Third
>Imperium are Vilani empires with a veneer of Solomani (which is more than
>likely a bastardisation of Terrans anyway (Alien Modual : Solomani, where
>it mentions the Solomanisation of the Vilani)

And it is quite probable that Solomani is even a Vilani term, which Hiroshi
used to appeal to the Vilani masses of the new empire.

>I have always been interested with the Interstellar War, and maybe we can
>use PE as a base guide on the whole period.

>I enjoyed your post Harold, and maybe somehow the TML can actualy codify
>the Interstellar war period, so we can stop this darn RoM artifacts
>flamewar.

I second that.  These guys did their homework, and I have to give em a tip
of the ol'hat. ^:-)  Nothing wrong with that.

On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:59:47 -0700 (MST)
Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU> writes:
>Subject: Re: Rule of Man (ROM) TL
>
>On Thu, 26 Jun 1997, Leroy William Lu Guatney wrote:
> 
>> To those of you who still think that J-drive range is the sole measure
>> of tech level, answer the following questions.
>> 
>> 1) What tech does it take to Terraform a size 8 world?
>> 
>> 2) What tech does it take to genetically alter homo-sapiens into a
>>    self-reproducing, stable, water-breathing variant (i.e. make a minor
>>    human)?
>> 
>> 3) What tech does it take to genetically alter a non-sapient species to
>>    sapience (i.e. dolphins)?
>> 
>> 
>> All of the above were accomplished by the Terran Confederation BEFORE the
>> Rule of Man.
>
>This is a problem specific to the way that TL is defined in Traveller.
>TL's were defined pretty much before the ongoing revolutions in genetics,
>small computers, and even to a some extent materials technology. These
>other things were introduced as plot devices and background as the game
>and the official history evolved, and didn't always follow the 'rules' for
>defining TL, what there were of them.

I have to disagree.  Not with the logical premise you point out in
chronology, but with the fact that these problems only arise when people
start "anchoring" from the rather backward (TL7/8) perspective.  Only
when people started complaining because computers were "so big" in High
Guard, did we get this kind of thinking.

I used to say, "Take an IBM mainframe (3084) and assume that one of those
is half the duplex of a Traveller (HG) Model/1 (ignoring issues like size
of programs which are too generic to truly fit to a properly undetailed
rules set).  Now build up a cluster of those duplexed 3084s to, say give
us a Model/n (or whatever you like greater than 1).  A High Guard computer
hit produces a Computer-1 damage result.  What cluster of any amount of
IBM mainframes is going to take a damage hit, and keep on ticking."

This is the kind of thinking that has not generally been done in looking
at the sizes of computers.  Unfortunately, I still see thinking like that
today.

>This means, I think, that we can really only use TL to determine a few
>things, primarily starship jump capability, some weapons technology, and
>some transport technology. Other areas such as terraforming, geneering,
>cybernetics, etc are much more nebulously associated with any given TL.

Well, that is quite a dodge, but I don't think it would hold up with any
reading the rules books for this game. :)

>Bruce Johnson


Well, that's everything I wanted to respond to.

I would like to see reasonably direct answers to the above questions,
which Bruce has artfully dodged.  (Maybe I'm getting through to him
too. :)

I do promise to get the sources out to you all eventually.  I am just
_extremely_ busy now, and want to keep any discussion going if there is
still more to say that is relevant (of course :).  We should reward this
kind of behaviour.  Many of us have long been frustrated to find that
something had the wheels of canon roll right over what we had always known
to be fact.


Leroy
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Science Adventure
                                                        in the Far Future

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 00:48:59 -0400
From: Jon Fuller <foxonetwo@geocities.com>
Subject: Greetings.

Greetings to all.  

My name is Jon Fuller.  I've just come back to the TML after a long
hiatus -- looks like everything's normal (still arguing over rules,
still coming up with the nifty ideas :).

I just decided to introduce myself, since I doubt anyone hear knows me.
I'm a graphic designer/illustrator apprentice by trade (some of my work
appears on Goeran's pages, I think -- and at
http://pages.prodigy.com/fuller/ (shameless plug, I know)).  (That last
bit was directed at those looking to team with a designer/illustrator in
their THUDDD entries.)

As far as rule sets go, my only experience with MT was thru extensive
playtesting of the computer games (and while the first wasn't bad, the
second drove me _absolutely_ bananas).  I bought more TNE supplements
and the included awful artwork than I should have, so out of duty to my
income, I employ it as my main system (my T4.1 book is on order, as well
as FF&SII (yay!--can't wait to design something cool!).  

Thus, if I ask any questions at any time in the near future, they'll
probably be TNE related.  

Other than that, please drop by my gorgeous web site sometime and leave
a note!

Jon Fuller
foxonetwo@geocities.com

http://pages.prodigy.com/fuller/

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 00:58:08 -0400
From: Jon Fuller <foxonetwo@geocities.com>
Subject: Hardware and O/S

> > I was wondering what computers/operating systems people here use?  

486/133, Windows95/ 6x86/200+, Windows95/ Powermacs of all types/ Iris
3130, Unix and a Kaypro 3, CP/M 

:) That about covers it.

.JF.
foxonetwo@geocities.com
http://pages.prodigy.com/fuller/

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 97 23:41:16 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Pistols at 900 paces!

On 06/27/97 at 03:32 AM,  jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay) said:

>"Because the dice code for ranged combat tasks is dependent upon distance
>rather than weapon type, it is theoretically possible for a character to
>hit a target at 1500 meters with a pistol, though very unlikely."
 
Now, don't get me wrong I agree with the points you made in your post,
but...

I read a magazine article several years ago about a fellow that really
*could* hit a man sized target at 1 mile (~1600m) 3 out of 4 shots.  He
used a hand built long barreled 44 revolver, firing from the side of hill
across a valley at a target on the other side.  If I remember correctly, he
sat down to fire, balancing the gun's barrel and sighting between his feet.

I don't remember the article too well, it *was* over 20 years ago, and it
only stuck with me at all because of the sheer improbability of such long
range shots with a pistol.  It seemed impossible to me at the time, but
well I *did* read it.  And no, it wasn't in The Star.  ;->


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

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1489
***********************************
