Traveller-digest       Friday, June 27 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1496



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Battledress and Heroism (going off-topic)
Re: [T97#1476] Alternative world generation attribution
Re: Definition of a ton
What is Canon?
Re: penetrating battledress.
Pocket Empires
Re: Chargen Revisions for T41
Nebula Design Contest
Re: Task System, Game Design, etc.
Re: Hardware and O/S
Re: Generic Task Descriptions
Re: Battledress and Heroism
Re: Battledress and Heroism
Re: Task System, Game Design, etc.
Re: penetrating battledress.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:38:14 -0500
From: Phil Rhodes <Phillip_Rhodes@baylor.edu>
Subject: Re: Battledress and Heroism (going off-topic)

jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay) wrote:
>It wasn't a joke.  It was part of an actual transcript between a US
>naval vessel and Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in
>October, 1995 (I happen to have the article right in front of me...
>what a coincidence).
<snippage>

>US ship:  "This is the aircraft carrier USS Missouri.  We are a large
>warship of the US Navy.  Divert your course NOW!" (you can almost
>/feel/ the arrogance)

Two points:  the USN has never to my knowledge had an *aircraft carrier*
USS Missourri.  A BB, yes, but not an aircraft carrier.  Also, I have
a book of 'Humor in Uniform' columns from Reader's Digest published in 
the 1950s with this same story in it, with extremely minor differences.
It's your call, but I'd say that the transcript is bogus.

Now, task systems anyone?
- --
- -Phil     (Phillip_Rhodes@baylor.edu)

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 97 17:29:00 -0500
From: jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN)
Subject: Re: [T97#1476] Alternative world generation attribution

Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu> writes...

T::>A few days ago, I credited Jeff Zeitlin with inspiring me to do my own
 ::>world generation rules, as long as I was fixing data anyway.

T::>Inadvertently, I did not credit everyone listed in the credits.  The page I
 ::>was thinking of was:

T::>http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe/traveller/house/altWorldGeneration.html
 ::>Alternative World Generation systems

T::>And the authors listed are:

T::>By Jeff Zeitlin <jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com>
 ::>Jim Vassilakos <jimv@ucrengr.ucr.edu>
 ::>Derek Wildstar <wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu>
 ::>Mark Clark <markc@brahms.udel.edu>
 ::>Bruce Pihlamae <pihlab@hhcs.gov.au>
 ::>Steve Bonneville <bonn0015@gold.tc.umn.edu>

T::>I suppose there are advantages to being the first listed author.

 I'm a little surprised that I'm listed first; as I recall, the
 inspiration to that debate and the final rework/summarization
 and "coherentizing" were both by Jim Vassilakos - and a very
 interesting discussion it was.  These are the rules that
 eventually got incorporated into Jim's GALACTIC program; as I
 recall, Jim also included the text of the thread with the
 program.  I suspected that this was what you were thinking of
 when you mentioned the "life stat".

 I'd like to mention that I always felt that that discussion was
 an absolutely shining example of what I always hoped for from
 the TML - and actually got, more often than not.

==========================================================================
Jeff Zeitlin                                      jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com
- ---
  OLXWin 1.00b  Earthmen fear to bargain honestly.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 23:41:28 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
Subject: Re: Definition of a ton

On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, Bruce Johnson wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, Robert Flammang wrote:
> 
> snip
>     
[20% off argument snipped]
> The problem I have with this arose when we were trying to figure out
> whether that free traders we could design _using the rules in the book_,
> could be economically viable _using the rules in the book_!
> 

The rule I use is that the deackplan can have a maximum 20% off value,
since there seldome is a constant height value. The total volume of the
compnent, cargo space, or what ever is still the value given in the
design rules. 

> If by referee fiat, I can just magically add space as needed, why have a
> design system at all?
> 
One should really differ between the values in the spreadsheet and in 
the dackplanes as I said over. Your arguement hits home the day the 
players want to design ship. Then you really need a design system that 
is consistent with all ships you have used in the campaign so far, or
you'll have to make some real handwaving.

> Granted, this degenerates rapidly into a Rule playing vs. Role playing
> argument, in which I fall firmly on the side of the Role-playing camp.

Not necesseraly a rule vs. role, but a design system makes it easier to
stay consistent. Can a jump 2 vessel have 90% cargo space or not. 
One should always remeber that players remember more than the GM of what
has happend so far in the campaign.

> 
> But the truth is all I want is that a consistent set of units be used. If
> one book says a Td is 14 m^3, another says that it's 13.5 m^3 and yet
> another says that it's 10 m^3 or whatever, there is an undeniable problem
> no matter WHAT the 'slop factor' on deckplans is.

The Td is 14 cub meters in my game no matter what others say and will 
stay that way. Both QSDS and SSDS is based on this value and as long 
as these are the design systems, it really doesn't matter what NA or 
other guides say. It then becomes only a conversion problem for deckplans
and so on.

> 
> Bruce Johnson
> University of Arizona
> College of Pharmacy
> Information Technology Group
> 
> Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs 

Tommy Grav                  tommy.grav@astro.uio.no    
Institute of Astrophysics   http://www.uio.no/~tommygr/
University in Oslo          "If you value your lives, be somwhere 
Norway                       else!" - Ambassador Delenn B5 

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 15:53:21 -0600
From: lguatney@carbon.cudenver.edu (Leroy William Lu Guatney)
Subject: What is Canon?

Trying to knuckle down and study, I decided to post this question and
example so that I could stop thinking about it for awhile and get back
to studying.

What is Canon?

I generally think of it as the stuff published by GDW (and later DGP
and again GDW).  Sometimes, things like JTAS come close to not being
included, but at the same time I think of those more highly than other
fan press sources, at bottom of which I find Judge's Guild.

My approach is to research _everything_ I can find, see if a grand
hypothesis is to be found, and then assess that hypothesis for general
playability, suitability, and how it fits into how I see the (Traveller)
universe.  Then, I determine if it stays or goes.

How about you all?

What are the no-no's on your lists (i.e. casual reading, but no room
in your campaign)?

How are discrepancies (beyond obvious typoes) reconciled?

Now I can get back to that test for tonight. :)


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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:55:41 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: penetrating battledress.

At 06:13 PM 6/27/97 GMT, James W. Lindsay wrote:

>Modern tanks don't have holes.  They are completely sealed to combat
>the use of chemical and biological weapons.  They do have armoured
>periscopes for manual viewing, but these are armour plated and even a
>.50 calibre round will not be able to pierce the bullet proof glass,
>ricochet around inside the periscope body (which contains even more
>bulletproof glass, I believe), and enter the tank through the eye
>piece.

Ah, but I'll render that periscope pretty useless by shattering the outer
lens.. Try driving a 60-ton tank by braille.

>If you are talking about a tank commander that pops the hatch to get a
>better view of the battlefield, this is more akin to removing one's
>helmet when wearing BD, not a lucky shot that somehow manages to
>penetrate a TL12 visor or articulated joint.

Important difference is that a BD equipped trooper is able to swivel his
head, turn around, and enhance his field of vision without sacrificing his
protection grossly.  To achieve this, the swivel points in the armor can't
be as heavily protected.  In my view, most BD comes with a
Kevlar-equivalant kilt to cover the hip and groin area, since you need to
flex tose areas with some freedom.  (This also lets me justify my Marines
wearing kilts as part of their dress uniforms.)

A tanker needs to remove himself from this protection entirely to achieve
the same level of tactical awarness.  He takes a risk, but his incredibly
narrow view has been replaced by a complete range of vision and hearing.


- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|   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: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 17:51:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph M. Saul" <jmsaul@us.itd.umich.edu>
Subject: Pocket Empires

I just picked up Pocket Empires yesterday, and I wanted to tell everyone 
(including Marc Miller ;-) that it is REALLY COOL!

Way to go, guys.  This is not only well done, but original.

I know some have already posted about it, but I wanted Marc and IG to know that
we post when we're happy, too...

Joe Saul
jmsaul@umich.edu

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 15:12:39 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Chargen Revisions for T41

At 03:48 PM 6/27/97 -0400, Marc brought forth even more stone tablets:


>Heroism is a separate roll availabl;e if you roll 5- on Injury.
>The Edu scale has been wrenched downward.
>School prerequisite for Naval Acadamy has been increased to Int 9+ and Edu
>5-.
^^^

This fits in with my thoughts of both the Naval Service, and its Officer
Corps.  Inbred louts, the bunch of them.  Or did you mean 5+?

>Int Pre-Req of 9+ added for Medical School.
>Int PreReq of A+ added for Technical school.
>Prereq for Univerrsity, Mechant Academy and Military Academy is now Int 8+
>and Edu 6+.

These all sound good.. makes Chargen a little more realistic.

>TL Group roll on Worlds includes 0 (NoTech) and 7 (UHiTech) even though no
>die mods are specified and those entries are not included on the tables.

We'll come up with the mods when we need them.. thanks for including them..
suggestion, be sure to include a note in the text that those results are
for further Referee development, so to avoid confusion.

>Business is allowed as a major in University.
>Business Major and Merchant Degree are BBA.
>Grad School allows Business as a major and MBA as a degree.
>
>At Grad School, no degree is granted unless Major skill level is 4+ (6+ for
>Ph.D).

Tres Bien!  I can play burned out, bitter grad students now!

>At Medical School, now 5 years, automatic Med-1 each year, plus one skill per
>year. No degree uless Medical 6+.

Sehr Gut! (yes, I'm tired of typing "that's good") training doctors does
take a long time.  I will now make my final pitch to have Medical skill
split into a cascade of First Aid (or Trauma), Diagnosis, and Surgery.

>ED8 has become Ed4 certificate.

Umm. not too clear on this one....

>Cold Sleep weeks is per term; roll 2D each term for every term served. DM-
>commissioned rank for officers.

Might I say again how much I like this innovation?  It has backstory
implcations that I really like.

All in all, it sounds like T4.1 will be worth the wait.

Could somebody get a copy of this from Marc and translate it into something
that Word 6.0/Win 3.1 can read?  (With Marc's permission, of course..) I
would really like to see a copy.
- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|   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: Fri, 27 Jun 97 18:31:19 -0400
From: Lewis Roberts <lewis@chara.gsu.edu>
Subject: Nebula Design Contest

 Hi,

Hope this doesn't get lost in the Task Crusades. :)

A bunch of us on the TNE mailing list, thought the THUDD contest was a
really nifty idea.  So with the idea  that imitation is the best
flattery we thought we would start a design contest using FFS I, and
TNE assumptions.  With a minimal amount of work they can also be turned
into T4 ships.  

Contest Rules

1)Fire Fusion and Steel (the first one, not FFS2) should be used with
all associated errata.  
 
2)All ships should use standard TNE universe technology.  ie no
Thruster plates, cold fusion, subspace or other optional
technology.  Jump fuel should be calculated with the formula in FFS,
not 10% per parsec.  Crew requirments should be calculated as printed in FFS.

3)Its fine to use spreadsheets, or other design aids.  
 
4)Designs should be sent to me; lewis@chara.gsu.edu by July 14th. 
After that I'll mail them to the mailing list and allow voting for a
week. I will also put up all the designs on the BARD pages
(http://www.chara.gsu.edu/~lewis/roberts.html) (though it might take me
until after voting to get them all up, depends on my schedule)
and once a winner is announced I will put up a special icon on the
winner.  At least for the first contest, the icon will be of the Ring
Nebula.  After that maybe I'll rotate nebulas or come up with another
idea.  If you want to look at the icon it is at:
http://www.chara.gsu.edu/~lewis/graphics/nebula.gif

5)Ships should have some sort of text piece to go along with it.  With
out a text explanation, ships tend to be just a list of numbers.

6) Voting will be done by the members of the Traveller and TNE mailing lists. 
(I guess if anyone else sends in a ballot I'll count that too, but I
doubt anyone will)

Feel free to tell any other people about the contest. The more the merrier.  

Lewis Roberts
 
- - - ----------------------------------

When this idea was kicked around most people wanted to build
a Wilds Trader, so that will be the first ship to be designed.  After
that other ships usable in the Regency, Reformation Coalition as well
as ships produced during the Rebellion and other eras.  (Basically what
ever people want)

Here is a small intro paragraph to explain the story behind the Wilds
Trader.  I used the idea in Guilded Lilly of the RC buying old ships for new ones.

The RC has decided to institute a program of buying older highly worn
vessels from Free Traders, and replacing them with a new ship, which
can be maintained much easier and with Coalition supplied parts.
The benefits to the Coalition are that there will be a demand for
Coalition spare parts, the Free Traders will have to come to Coalition
space for repairs and annual maintenance.  The Free Traders will also
provide a means of communication between the Coalition and the Wilds.
This will start a base for further expansion of the RC. The RC will
also be able to salvage what ever remaining high tech parts these ships
have. It will also provide numerous jobs in the RC, and help spark
starport upgrades on worlds with only a B or C starport.  

The benefits to the Free Traders are that their ship will be much newer
and easier to maintain, there will be less down time, which will
increase profits.  They will have a steady supply of spare parts, as
opposed to the current situation of scrounging to find new parts at
every planet and starport.  While the Free Traders will have to come to
Coalition space to get the spare parts and maintenance, this will allow
them to purchase high tech merchandise that is unavailable in the Wilds,
further increasing profits. 

The RCSA feels that the standard Jayhawk Far Trader is unsuitable for
this task, for several reasons and is soliciting designs for a new Wilds
Trader.    The new ship can be built at any of the Coalition's shipyards,
at any associated Tech Level,  Jump Drives from Aubaine will have to be used  
and are available at the standard price.    At this time the RCSA
doesn't want to impose restrictions on the design of the ship.  It feels
that starship architects best know how to design ships, but it
encourages companies to interview Free Traders to get a feel for what
they want in a ship. 

The winning design, will be chosen by a panel of experts.  They will
judge the ship on affordability, survivability, profitability and general
usefulness.  Designs should be sent to the RCSA headquarters on Aubaine
by 14/VII/1202.  

Lewis Roberts
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------
Q:Why does an elephant have a trunk?
A:So that it has someplace to hide when it sees a mouse.        
 
lewis@chara.gsu.edu
http://www.chara.gsu.edu/~lewis/roberts.html
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
 

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 18:49:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: Task System, Game Design, etc.

In a message dated 97-06-26 15:49:51 EDT, you write:

<< 
 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.
 
>>

But the basic assumption that Characters are going to get 1 skill per year
means that the CT level of skills truly does fall out. CT just didn't have
tasks... its basic assumption was a special case for every situation, with
definitions like Med-3 = Doctor. Now, that has to be shifted to more like
Med-5 or Med-6, with expert doctors at Med-9 or Med-12.

I just don't see how we can keep thinking that the CT skill levels apply. The
roots of the change were in Mercenary, which gave people so many new skills
and in such higher proportions.

Indeed, the CharGen pieces I have posted all assume that characters get 1
skill (or slightly more) per year. No one has said, let's go back to 1 skill
per 4 years; they want the higher skill levels.

With that, then the task system needs to reflect skills at levels 0 to 15 or
so.

Marc

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 20:14:42 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Hardware and O/S

>Cool! I saw a Kaypro 3 at the swap meet (giant organized permanent garage
>sale sort of thingie) for $15 the other day. Unfortunately, my wife was
>with me too, so I got dragged away at high speed, hearing something like
>"No you CAN'T have ANOTHER useless old computer in the house!"

That's what my wife used to say about my ol' C64 hooked up to the TV in
the den, until I showed her how to play M.U.L.E. ...    :)

**********************************************************
Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 19:58:39 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Generic Task Descriptions

>>Eh, isn't this what's already there? Aren't task descriptions in T4
>>basically: Hard,Dex,Vaccsuit?
>
>I quote from "The Long Way Home" page 7:
>
>    To detect a gas giant 1 parsec away (12 hours)
>    (Education+Survey)+DMs < Difficult (2.5D)
>    Uncertain (1D)
>    
>    DM's depend upon the contents of the target system:  -1 if only one
>    small gas giant is present, +1 for each gas giant beyond the first,
>    -2 for each parsec beyond he first, -1 if the target star is size I,
>    II or III.
>
>end quote.

>My understanding of J's suggestion is to remove as many system specific
>details as possible.  In the example above, you would remove the + signs
>and the (2.5D) because not all task systems would add the full stat to the
>full skill level and not all Difficult task levels would use 2.5D.
>Additionally, as many DMs as possible should be expressed as changes to
>task level rather than flat +/- numbers to maximize cross-system
>compatability.  
>
>Concerning the DMs, I suggest dropping the number, but retaining the + and
>- - signs.  A single + or - would indicates a minor DM and ++ or --
>indicates a major DM, for whatever task system being used.
>
>A more generic Task Description:
>
>    To detect a gas giant 1 parsec away (12 hours)
>    (Education,Survey,DMs) < Difficult, Uncertain 
>    
>    +DM for each gas giant beyond 1
>    -DM if only one gas giant present
>    -DM if target star is I, II, or III
>    --DM for each parsec beyond 1
>    
>I'm not going to say my suggested layout is *better* than Marc's, but I
>think it is more generic, and it still gives all the information you'd need
>to use it with T4/T4.1..and I *think* MT.  
>
>You can take the components and plug them into systems that divide Stats,
>multiply Skills, or don't use the Stat at all.  You can take the DM's and
>use them as task level modifiers, or target number modifiers whichever you
>choice of task system requires.  How much each DM affects the outcome is up
>to the task system, but *relative* importance is given as a guideline.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, folks! I think we're losing sight of one BIG thing that has
been mentioned on this list in recent times: we are trying to attract new, 
*NEOPHYTE* players to the game and make things as easy for them as 
possible. I think it is not only acceptable for the task DMs and number of
dice to be in the task description like the first example, but should be
expected
as well. While I know what you are describing in your 2nd example, if I was
a beginning ref, I don't think I'd have a real clue *what* exactly I was 
supposed to do with those things. Add, subtract, multiply? Time to dig out 
the main rules (and the latest upgrades and variants in the Journal: this game
does remind me of _Star Fleet Battles_ on occasion <g>) and try and remember
what page all this was on... But give me a task like the first one, and the
memory
prompts are there already to help me remember what it is I'm supposed to be
doing.

And the thing this ignores *most* is that there *is* going to be an OFFICIAL
task system for this game... So why not set up the examples to make it as 
easy as possible to use the official system? All of us out here in codgerland
who have been playing rpgs since the Carter Administration can very easily
translate what we need out of that first example into our own version of the
task system; far easier than I feel a beginner could translate it correctly
and
with the least amount of trouble into the official system (and most probably,
the only one he/she knows about). Let them get a campaign or two under
their belt before expecting them to care whether a Med-5 should get 
Spectacular Success more often than Regular Success. <g>

I'll be quiet now <g>.

**********************************************************
Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 16:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@Cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Battledress and Heroism

> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 18:24:28 GMT
> From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
> 
> It wasn't a joke.  It was part of an actual transcript between a US
> naval vessel and Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in
> October, 1995 (I happen to have the article right in front of me...
> what a coincidence).
> 
> US ship:  "This is the aircraft carrier USS Missouri.  We are a large
> warship of the US Navy.  Divert your course NOW!" (you can almost
> /feel/ the arrogance)

Unless some big changes have happened in the USN since I last did business
with them, something's been garbled here.  The Mighty Mo is (was) a
battleship, and not active in 1995.  I'm almost certain there's no carrier
using the name; states seem reserved for boomers and battleships by Navy
tradition.
 
> Canada:  This is a lighthouse.  Your call.

ROFL!  Reminds me of a story my former coworker the ex-Admiral told me,
about the day (in the late 70s, I believe) a CVN ran aground off the coast
of Southern California. It hit some just-under-the-surface rocks...with
several lighted warning buoys on top!  Seems there was a shift rotation on
the bridge just minutes earlier, outgoing crew figured the new guys would
deal with it, incomers spent a few minutes chatting before checking the
charts, *crunch*.  A team of top fleet brass jet-helicoptered out to the
scene to investigate.  Quite a few careers ran aground that day, too...

Also (more peripherally) reminds me of my favorite WWII naval story.  USN
squadron was escorting a convoy of merchants across the North Atlantic,
and entering an area known to present a high threat of U-Boat activity.
One of the US subs accompanying the group signals over to the command
cruiser, "In the event of an attack, we plan to remain on the surface."

Moments later, the cruiser signals back, "So do we." :)

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

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

Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 00:28:11 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Battledress and Heroism

On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 13:07:13 -0700 (MST), Bruce Johnson wrote:

> 
> On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, James Lindsay wrote:
>  
> > US ship:  "This is the aircraft carrier USS Missouri.  We are a large
> > warship of the US Navy.  Divert your course NOW!" (you can almost
> > /feel/ the arrogance)
> > 
> > Canada:  This is a lighthouse.  Your call.
> 
> Suspect it's apocyphal or urban legend...the USS Missouri is a
> decomissioned battleship in 1995, AFAIK there are NO carriers named after
> states, only battlewagons. Not, mind that I doubt something like this
> happened...a friend who served on the Big E (in photo-recon analysis) had
> an admiral once try to tell him that a chain-link fence on an aerial photo
> was a string of SAMs. 

I was pretty sure as well, but I posted it word-for-word, just the
same.  Perhaps they had the name wrong... or the vessel type... no big
deal :)

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 17:08:14 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Task System, Game Design, etc.

At 06:49 PM 6/27/97 -0400, Marc wrote:

>With that, then the task system needs to reflect skills at levels 0 to 15 or
>so.

As long as it is recognized that skill levels above 8 or so approach
renowned experts or legendary operators.  Most people will have many skills
in the 2-4 range, and function quite nicely in society.  Someone with
Rifle-12 should be a legend on the scale of GnySgt Carlos Hathcock.. A man
who *never* seems to miss.


In my games, I will continue to encourage players to develop characters
with a wide range of abilities.. not to the point where everybody can do
each other's jobs, but to reflect that people pick things up as they go
along in life.  I know very few mono-maniacal types who focus on one skill
to the exclusion of any other.

Also, I would like to see a return of the skill ceiling.. some method of
keeping players from amassing every skill in the book at level 5.  The
INT+EDU limit, the suggestion of making every skill point beyond a certain
level "cost" double, all of these would work well, IMHO.
- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|   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: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 00:28:14 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: penetrating battledress.

On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:55:41 -0700, Douglas E. Berry wrote:

> At 06:13 PM 6/27/97 GMT, James W. Lindsay wrote:
> 
> >Modern tanks don't have holes.  They are completely sealed to combat
> >the use of chemical and biological weapons.  They do have armoured
> >periscopes for manual viewing, but these are armour plated and even a
> >.50 calibre round will not be able to pierce the bullet proof glass,
> >ricochet around inside the periscope body (which contains even more
> >bulletproof glass, I believe), and enter the tank through the eye
> >piece.
> 
> Ah, but I'll render that periscope pretty useless by shattering the outer
> lens.. Try driving a 60-ton tank by braille.

This may make that particular sighting device unusable, but it does
not resulting in wounding the human operator(s) inside.  This thread
originated from the discussion regarding how easily BD was penetrated
by small arms using the MT task system (by adopting such a system and
allowing such events to take place, one would have to go back and
rewrite everything regarding the imperviousness of BD in T4, CSC, EA,
etc.).  But I digress...

I'd imagine driving a 60-ton tank by braille would be kinda fun...
specially like that US Army soldier that commandeered one and lead an
entire police force on a chase sequence rivalling OJ's!  :)

> >If you are talking about a tank commander that pops the hatch to get a
> >better view of the battlefield, this is more akin to removing one's
> >helmet when wearing BD, not a lucky shot that somehow manages to
> >penetrate a TL12 visor or articulated joint.
> 
> Important difference is that a BD equipped trooper is able to swivel his
> head, turn around, and enhance his field of vision without sacrificing his
> protection grossly.  To achieve this, the swivel points in the armor can't
> be as heavily protected.  In my view, most BD comes with a
> Kevlar-equivalant kilt to cover the hip and groin area, since you need to
> flex tose areas with some freedom.  (This also lets me justify my Marines
> wearing kilts as part of their dress uniforms.)

Ever see one of those Newt Suits used in deep-sea diving (designed
just across the inlet in North Vancouver)?  They do not have flexible
joints *anywhere*; just a series of rotating hemispheres.  Although
their very construction technique means that the materials that the
suit is made from don't have to be very strong, I don't see why
similar technology couldn't be used in MCr0.5 BD to protect joints,
etc.

Kilts!?!  Do they all wear the "Berry" tartan?  Do they carry golf
clubs as melee weapons, too?  :P

> A tanker needs to remove himself from this protection entirely to achieve
> the same level of tactical awarness.  He takes a risk, but his incredibly
> narrow view has been replaced by a complete range of vision and hearing.

This is true of any form of protection.  Unfortunately, it has little
bearing regarding how the MT task system allows hits to be inflicted
on BD occupants when much of what is written about battledress in TNE
and T4 describe BD as being nigh-invulnerable to small arms (just like
"The Tick").



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

       If it nay Sco'ish... its Crraaaap!

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1496
***********************************
